CITATION: Freedman v Macquarie University [2008] NSWADT 105 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Craig Farrell Freedman
Macquarie UniversityFILE NUMBER: 073176 HEARING DATES: 21 September 2007 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 14 December 2007
DATE OF DECISION:
8 April 2008BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs - confidential material - internal working documents - operations of agencies MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1989 CASES CITED: BW v Registrar New South Wale Medical Board [2002] NSWADT 76
Chief Executive Officer, State Rail Authority v Woods [2003] NSWADTAP 25
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429
Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW and Perrin (1993) 31 NSWLR 606
Director-General of Education and Training v Mullett and Randazzo [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Director-General, Department of Education and Training v Mullett and Randazzo (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 29
General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84
Gilling v Hawkesbury City Council (1999) NSWADT 43
Harris v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1984) 51 ALR 581
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45
P v Greater Western Area Health Service [2007] NSWADTAP 57
Re Hutchinson and Department of Human Services (1997) 12 VAR 422
Re Maher and the Attorney General’s Department (No 2) (1986) 4 AAR 266
Re Waterford and Department of the Treasury (No 2) (1984) 5 ALD 588
Todd v University of New South Wales [2004] NSW ADT 250
TW v TX [2005] NSWADT 262REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
In person
M Allars, barristerORDERS: The decision under review is affirmed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 By his application dated 14 August 2006, the Applicant sought access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (“the FOI Act”) in the following terms:
2 The Applicant subsequently clarified that the application as follows:
“In accordance with the NSW ordinances regarding Freedom of Information, I would like to request and obtain a copy of the Collins report. This was an evaluation of the Division of Economic and Financial Studies as conducted by John Collins in 2005 (“the Collins review”). It was based on a series of interviews and submissions. The report was presented to Vice Chancellor Stephen Schwartz in 2006.”
3 The University identified a number of documents as falling within the scope of the…
“The Collins Report (Review of the Division of Economic and Financial Studies) I have requested is not the version edited by Professor Loxton and presented to the Senate this week. (I might add that it was not accepted by the Senate). I have a copy of this. I am asking to see the penultimate and the final report that was not edited by Professor Loxton. I would consider this Stage 1 of my request.
After thinking about our discussion, I would subsequently like to receive the submissions from staff, both from named staff and unnamed staff (confidential statements number 1-11). That would be the second stage.”
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Freedman v Macquarie University 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2008] NSWADT 105
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Freedman v Macquarie University was a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Freedman, sought access to certain documents held by the defendant, Macquarie University, under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents in question related to the university's internal operations and the personal affairs of certain individuals. The university resisted the application, arguing that the documents were exempt from disclosure on the basis that they were confidential and related to the personal affairs of individuals.
The court was required to determine whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The primary issue was whether the documents fell within the category of personal affairs, which could be exempt from disclosure if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. The court also had to consider whether the documents related to the operations of the agency and whether disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the confidentiality of the information.
The court found that the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The court held that the documents related to the personal affairs of individuals and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their privacy. The court also found that the documents related to the operations of the agency and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the confidentiality of the information. The court held that the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act were properly applied, and the decision to deny access to the documents was affirmed.
The decision under review is affirmed. The court found that the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and the decision of the university to deny access to the documents was properly made. The plaintiff's application for access to the documents was dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The primary issue was whether the documents fell within the category of personal affairs, which could be exempt from disclosure if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. The court also had to consider whether the documents related to the operations of the agency and whether disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the confidentiality of the information.
The court found that the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The court held that the documents related to the personal affairs of individuals and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of their privacy. The court also found that the documents related to the operations of the agency and that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of the confidentiality of the information. The court held that the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act were properly applied, and the decision to deny access to the documents was affirmed.
The decision under review is affirmed. The court found that the documents were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and the decision of the university to deny access to the documents was properly made. The plaintiff's application for access to the documents was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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.