Denhollander and Secretary, Department of Defence (Freedom of information)

This case concerned an application by Mr Denhollander to amend an AF Med 1 form, which had been the subject of previous applications, including a substantive hearing before Deputy President Forgie in 2002. The Secretary of the Department of Defence was the respondent. The core dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal could inform itself of relevant findings of fact from the previous decision and whether the applicant could reopen proceedings for a rehearing based on further information.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was open to regard the previous decision as determinative of certain issues, and whether the Tribunal had the discretion to decide that those issues should not be reopened. The Tribunal was also required to consider the requirements of procedural fairness, specifically the applicant's opportunity to re-agitate findings of fact.

The Tribunal reasoned that it had the discretion to treat the previous decision as determinative and that the applicant had been afforded a full rehearing. It found that the evidence presented in the current application did not materially differ from that before Deputy President Forgie in 2002, nor did it impact the previous findings. Consequently, the Tribunal adopted and repeated the findings made in the 2002 decision, concluding that there was no reason to alter them or the previous decision. The application to amend the AF Med 1 form was therefore affirmed.