Howell v Macquarie University - [2007] NSWADT 95

Set aside by Appeal:

CITATION: Howell v Macquarie University [2007] NSWADT 95

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Sally Clare Howell
RESPONDENT
Macquarie University

FILE NUMBER: 063012

HEARING DATES: 24,25 August 2006

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 1 September 2006

DATE OF DECISION:
20 April 2007

BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: access to documents - business affairs - access to documents - confidential material - access to documents - legal professional privilege - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - business affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - confidential material - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - legal professional privilege - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Ombudsman Act 1974

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97
Cianfrano v Director-General, New South Wales Treasury [2005] NSW ADT 7
Commissioner of Police v The District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543
Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading v Vasey Housing Association NSW [2002] NSWCA 320
Druett v Director General, Department of Community Services (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 269
Howell v Macquarie University [2006] NSWADT 207
Howell v Macquarie University (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 10
Industrial Equity Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 649
Mann v Carnell (l999) 201 CLR 1
McMahon v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2003] NSWADT 164
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSW ADT 107
Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 122
R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601
R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681
Raethel v Director-General, Department of Education and Training [1999] NSWADT 108
Re Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms (1994) 1 QAR 491
Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227 Re Schorel and Director-General of the Department of Community Services (Vic) (1991) 4 VAR 436
TW v TX [2005] NSWADT 262Watkins v Chief Executive, Roads and Traffic Authority [2000] NSWADT 11
Young v Wicks (1986) 79 ALR 448

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
P Howell, solicitor
RESPONDENT
M Allars, barrister

ORDERS: The matter is to be set down for further directions on 22 May 2007 at 9:30 am.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 This matter relates to the fourth in a series of applications brought by the applicant pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (“the FOI Act”). Two earlier matters were the subject of determination by a differently constituted Tribunal and the decisions are recorded at Howell v Macquarie University [2006] NSWADT 207 (“the Tribunal decision”). The applicant appealed against those decisions to the Tribunal’s Appeal Panel. The appeal was recently concluded and the Appeal Panel’s decision is recorded at Howell v Macquarie…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Howell 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

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: [2007] NSWADT 95
Decision Date: 20 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Howell v Macquarie University involved the applicant, Ms. Howell, seeking access to certain documents held by the University under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The dispute arose out of a decision by the University to deny Ms. Howell access to documents that she believed were pertinent to her employment and academic standing. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the documents sought by Ms. Howell were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and, if so, which exemptions applied. The court had to consider exemptions related to business affairs, confidential material, legal professional privilege, and personal affairs. The University argued that the documents contained sensitive and confidential information which, if disclosed, could harm its operations and the privacy of its employees and students.

The court examined each exemption in turn, considering the nature of the documents and the public interest in their disclosure. It found that some documents were indeed exempt from disclosure due to their confidential nature and the potential harm to the University's operations and the privacy of individuals. The court concluded that the University's decision to withhold certain documents was justified under the relevant exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act. However, the court also noted that some documents might be redacted to protect sensitive information while still allowing for meaningful access to the less sensitive parts.

The matter was to be set down for further directions to allow for the possibility of redaction and limited disclosure, scheduled for 22 May 2007 at 9:30 am. The court's decision balanced the public's right to access information with the need to protect sensitive and confidential material.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matter is to be set down for further directions on 22 May 2007 at 9:30 am.

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.

CITATION:	Howell v Macquarie University [2007] NSWADT 95
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Sally Clare Howell RESPONDENT Macquarie University
FILE NUMBER:	063012
HEARING DATES:	24,25 August 2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	1 September 2006
DATE OF DECISION:	20 April 2007
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	access to documents - business affairs - access to documents - confidential material - access to documents - legal professional privilege - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - business affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - confidential material - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - legal professional privilege - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Ombudsman Act 1974
CASES CITED:	Attorney General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 64 ALR 97 Cianfrano v Director-General, New South Wales Treasury [2005] NSW ADT 7 Commissioner of Police v The District Court of NSW (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543 Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading v Vasey Housing Association NSW [2002] NSWCA 320 Druett v Director General, Department of Community Services (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 269 Howell v Macquarie University [2006] NSWADT 207 Howell v Macquarie University (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 10 Industrial Equity Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 649 Mann v Carnell (l999) 201 CLR 1 McMahon v Director-General, Department of Fair Trading [2003] NSWADT 164 Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSW ADT 107 Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 122 R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601 R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 Raethel v Director-General, Department of Education and Training [1999] NSWADT 108 Re Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms (1994) 1 QAR 491 Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227 Re Schorel and Director-General of the Department of Community Services (Vic) (1991) 4 VAR 436 TW v TX [2005] NSWADT 262Watkins v Chief Executive, Roads and Traffic Authority [2000] NSWADT 11 Young v Wicks (1986) 79 ALR 448
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT P Howell, solicitor RESPONDENT M Allars, barrister
ORDERS:	The matter is to be set down for further directions on 22 May 2007 at 9:30 am.