Gardem v Edmistone

The Gardem v Edmistone case involves the plaintiff, Gardem, suing the defendant, Edmistone, for damages due to alleged reprisals following public interest disclosures made by Gardem. The dispute was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Gardem claimed that the reprisals occurred during the period when the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 was in force, and that he was entitled to damages under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. Edmistone argued that Gardem's claim was misconceived and that it should have been made under the repealed Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994.

The court was required to determine whether Gardem's disclosures were considered public interest disclosures under the repealed Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994, and if so, whether these disclosures constituted conduct that could be a criminal offence as defined by section 15 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001. The court also had to decide whether the detriment experienced by Gardem was due to, or in the belief of, public interest disclosures, and if there was an attempt to cause such detriment. Additionally, the court needed to interpret the relevant legislation to determine if Gardem's claim was properly made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010.

The court found that Gardem's disclosures did not constitute public interest disclosures under the repealed Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994, as they did not meet the criteria for conduct that could be a criminal offence. The court held that the detriment Gardem experienced was not due to, or in the belief of, public interest disclosures, and there was no attempt to cause such detriment. Consequently, the claim for reprisal was dismissed, and the court ordered that Gardem pay Edmistone's costs on the standard basis, excluding Queen's Counsel's fees for brief to appear on specific dates. The court further allowed Gardem until 4.00pm on 27 June 2018 to apply for a different order regarding costs.