Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read
Set aside by Appeal: Set aside by appeal on 8/11/2000

CITATION: Daykin -v- SAS Trustee Corporation [2000] NSWADT 51
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Adam Shane Daykin

RESPONDENT
SAS Trustee Corporation
FILE NUMBER: 993275
HEARING DATES: 28/03/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/19/2000
DATE OF DECISION:
05/01/2000
BEFORE: Smith MB - Judicial Member
APPLICATION: access to documents - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED: Mangoplah Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Great Southern Energy [1999] NSWADT 93
X v Director-General, Department of Community Services [1999] NSWADT 141
Lambidis v Commissioner of Police (1995) 37 NSWLR 320 Calman v Commissioner of Police [1999] HCA 69
Jones v Dunkell (1959) 101 CLR 298
Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] VSCA 117
Akins v Abigroup Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 539
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674
Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel (1999) 91 FCR 374
Parker Pen (Australia) Ltd v Export Development Grants Board (1983) 67 FLR 234
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985) 162 CLR 24
Haoucher v Minister for Immigration (1993) 42 FCR 287
Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (1996) 189 CLR 1
Portch v State Authorities Superannuation Board (unreported Industrial Court of NSW, Cullen J, 29 March 1993 at p.2, and Ford v State Authorities Superannuation Board (supra) at p.7
R v Bell, ex parte Lees (1980) 146 CLR 141
Egan v Chadwick [1999] NSWCA 176
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501
Lambidis v Commissioner of Police (1995) 37 NSWLR 320
Murphy v Abi-Saab (1995) 37 NSWLR 280
R v Blair (1985) 1 NSWLR 584
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66
Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] VSCA 117
Fagan v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (1982) 150 CLR 666
Re New Broadcasting Ltd and Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 12 ALD 1
Re Hungerford and Repatriation Commission (1990) 21 ALD 568
Re Velovski and Telstra Corporation (1998) 26 AAR 454
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
B T Matthews, solicitor
RESPONDENT
In person
ORDERS: 1. The reviewable decision is set aside. ; 2. There be substituted for the reviewable decision a decision that the applicant be given access to the report of Dr Brian Stephenson dated 25 March 1999.

Introduction

1 This is an application by Mr Dakin for review of a decision made on behalf of the respondent on 7 October 1999 which refused access under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) to a medical report concerning the applicant prepared by Dr Brian Stephenson and dated 25 March 1999. I shall refer to it as “Dr Stephenson’s second report”. The decision was affirmed on internal review on 26 October 1999.

2 The sole ground claimed for refusing access pursuant to s 24 of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2000] NSWADT 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation involved the applicant, Daykin, seeking access to a report prepared by Dr Brian Stephenson. The report was relevant to a dispute with the SAS Trustee Corporation, which administers superannuation funds. The matter was brought before the court to challenge a decision denying Daykin access to the report. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to access the report under the Freedom of Information Act. This required the court to consider the scope of exemptions under the Act and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in withholding the information.

The court's analysis focused on the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the specific exemptions that might apply to the report in question. The court considered the nature of the report and the circumstances under which it was prepared, weighing these against the public interest considerations. It was determined that the report contained information that was not exempt from disclosure under the Act. The court held that the public interest in transparency and access to information outweighed the potential harm from disclosure. Consequently, the decision denying access to the report was found to be unreasonable and thus set aside.

Following the court's decision, the reviewable decision was set aside, and it was ordered that the applicant be given access to the report of Dr Brian Stephenson dated 25 March 1999. This decision emphasised the importance of transparency and the public's right to access information, subject to specific exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that withholding information must be justified by a compelling public interest, and in this case, such justification was not adequately demonstrated.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The reviewable decision is set aside. ; 2. There be substituted for the reviewable decision a decision that the applicant be given access to the report of Dr Brian Stephenson dated 25 March 1999.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.