CITATION: Howell v Macquarie University (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 227
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Sally Clare Howell
RESPONDENT
Macquarie UniversityFILE NUMBER: 063012 HEARING DATES: On the papers SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 20 June 2007
DATE OF DECISION:
28 September 2007BEFORE: 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 1989
Ombudsman Act 1974CASES CITED: Chief Executive, SAS Trustee Corporation v Daykin [2000] NSWADTAP 20
Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2007] NSWADT 216
Cripps & Anor v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd & Anor (2006) NSWCA 81
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543
Howell v Macquarie University [2007] NSWADT 95
Mangoplah Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Great Southern Energy [1999] NSWADT 93
Miriani v Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading [2006] NSWADT 52
North Eastern Travelstops Pty Limited v Bradley and Ors (No. 2) [2005] NSWADTAP 17
Secretary to the Department of Justice v Osland [2007] VSCA 96
University of New South Wales v Gerard Michael McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
P Howell, solicitor
M Allars, barristerORDERS: Orders; In accordance with the Reasons for Decision provided in Howell v Macquarie University [2007] NSWADT 95 (“the 20 April 2007 reasons”), the Tribunal orders that: ; 1. the decision under review is set aside. ; 2. in substitution for the decision:; (a) the Respondent's determination that Documents 73-79 are exempt under clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW) (“the FOI Act") is affirmed; ; (b) those parts of Documents 3, 14, 21 and 43 identified in paragraph 105 of the 20 April 2007 reasons are exempt under clause 10 and the documents are to be released with that exempt matter deleted; ; (c) those parts of Documents 16, 27, 34, 35, 37, 44, 48, 50, 55, 57, 63, 68, 70 and 71 identified in paragraph 110 of the 20 April 2007 reasons are exempt under clause 6 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act and the documents are to be released with that exempt matter deleted; ; (d) those parts of Documents 32 and 38 identified in paragraph 92 of the 20 April 2007 reasons are exempt under clause 7 of Schedule 1 to the FOI Act and the documents are to be released with that exempt matter deleted; and; (e)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Howell v Macquarie University (No 2) 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
- [2007] NSWADT 227
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Howell v Macquarie University, the applicant sought access to certain documents held by the University under the Freedom of Information Act. The dispute primarily centred around the classification and disclosure of these documents, with contentions regarding their relevance to personal and business affairs, as well as issues of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. The matter was adjudicated by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
The primary legal issues involved determining whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, specifically in relation to personal information, business affairs, confidentiality, and legal professional privilege. The Tribunal had to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the potential harm or prejudice that might result from releasing the information.
The Tribunal's reasoning was comprehensive, carefully examining each document in the context of the relevant exemptions. The Tribunal found that certain documents were exempt from disclosure due to the presence of personal information that, if released, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Additionally, some documents were withheld because they pertained to the University's business affairs, and their disclosure would undermine the University's operations. The Tribunal also considered the principle of legal professional privilege, concluding that certain documents were protected as they involved confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. After considering all factors, the Tribunal affirmed the University's decision in part, ordering the release of specific documents with exempt material redacted.
The final orders affirmed the decision to withhold certain documents while requiring the release of others with exemptions. The Tribunal ordered that the release of the specified documents would occur 28 days after the date of the decision. No order for costs was made.
The primary legal issues involved determining whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, specifically in relation to personal information, business affairs, confidentiality, and legal professional privilege. The Tribunal had to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the potential harm or prejudice that might result from releasing the information.
The Tribunal's reasoning was comprehensive, carefully examining each document in the context of the relevant exemptions. The Tribunal found that certain documents were exempt from disclosure due to the presence of personal information that, if released, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. Additionally, some documents were withheld because they pertained to the University's business affairs, and their disclosure would undermine the University's operations. The Tribunal also considered the principle of legal professional privilege, concluding that certain documents were protected as they involved confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. After considering all factors, the Tribunal affirmed the University's decision in part, ordering the release of specific documents with exempt material redacted.
The final orders affirmed the decision to withhold certain documents while requiring the release of others with exemptions. The Tribunal ordered that the release of the specified documents would occur 28 days after the date of the decision. No order for costs was made.
Orders
Orders of the court
In accordance with the reasons provided in Howell v Macquarie University [2007] NSWADT 95; (i) the decision under review is affirmed in regard to documents 73-79; (ii) the following documents are to be released with the exempt matter deleted: ; 3, 14, 16, 21, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 48, 50, 55, 57, 59, 63, 68, 70, 71 and 80; (iii) the decision under review is otherwise affirmed; (iv) no order for costs.; The release of additional material is to take place 28 days after the date of this decision.
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.