DEVASAHAYAM and COMCARE

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 784

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No. 2009/5563

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SHEILA DEVASAHAYAM

Applicant

And COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member

Date14 October 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision The interlocutory relief sought by the Applicant under s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is refused.

..................[sgd]............................

Ms N Isenberg

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – confidentiality – application for order made on the basis that the applicant apprehended that her identification in the reasons for decision could impact on her future employment prospects – whether granting of order is justified – application refused

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 35

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2009) 181 FCR 130

Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

14 October 2010 Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member

1.      Dr Devasahayam made a claim for compensation which was refused.  She ultimately sought review by this Tribunal and I heard that matter on 30 September and 1 October 2010 (“the substantive matter”).  I will today publish my decision in respect of the substantive matter.

2. Prior to the hearing, Dr Devasahayam applied for a confidentiality order under s 35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“AAT Act”), to have the hearing conducted in private and to prevent the publication of her name in the Tribunal’s decision. At a directions hearing by telephone on 23 September 2010 Dr Devasahayam indicated that she did not press her request for the hearing to be held in private, but she reiterated her wish that her name not be published. I decided that the appropriate course was to hear the evidence before making my decision, because it was unclear if, as Dr Devasahayam contended, she would be disadvantaged if details of her work history were to be publicly available. At the conclusion of the hearing I invited her to make submissions as to why I should make the orders sought.

3.      Dr Devasahayam said she was concerned that as she is applying for other jobs now, and has received notice of the termination of her employment with National Measurement Institute (NMI), she does not know if publication of what had occurred at NMI might affect her job prospects.  She observed that she will be unlikely to receive references from relevant managers at NMI.

4.      The Respondent neither consented to nor opposed the application.

Consideration

5. Under s 35 of the AAT Act, the Tribunal may, where it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence before it, give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication of the names of witnesses appearing before the Tribunal. In reaching a decision s 35 sets out that:

the Tribunal shall take as the basis of its consideration the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings before the Tribunal should…