Minister's Department) v Eva Coe - [2007] ACTSC 15

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (CHIEF
MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT) v EVA COE
[2007] ACTSC 15 (7 March 2007)

APPEAL – Administrative Law – Freedom of Information – access may be refused where giving access would divert resources – whether limited to work involved in locating and collating documents.

Freedom of Information Act 1989, s 3, s 23

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989, s 46

Supreme Court Rules, O 84

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), s 24

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, s 34

Legislation Act 2001, s 139

Re Shewcroft and Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1985) 7 ALN N307

Re Timmins and National Media Liaison Service (1986) 9 ALN N196

Re Carver and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1987) 12 ALD 447

Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust v Shire of Fern Tree Gully (1952) 85 CLR 159

Northrope v City of Hawthorn [1941] VLR 178

Freedom ofInformation Act 1982: Report on the Operation and Administration of the Freedom of Information Legislation, 1987 Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

No. SCA 17 of 2006

Judges: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 7 March 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )     No SCA 17 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (CHIEF MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT)
Appellant

AND: EVA COE
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Connolly J
Date:  7 March 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

This is an appeal on a question of law from a determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (the FOI Act). The Tribunal on 22 March 2006 set aside the appellant’s decision that it did not have to comply with a request for access to documents concerning Aboriginal land rights in the Australian Capital Territory on the basis of the provision of the Act (s 23) that permits access to be refused in cases where complying with the request would unreasonably divert resources or interfere substantially with the performance of agency operations. There is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal to this Court on a question of law pursuant to s 46 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989. In accordance with O 84 of the Supreme Court Rules, as they then stood, leave to appeal was granted by order of the Master on 19 May 2006.

The issue to be determined on this appeal

The appeal turns on the question of the appropriate interpretation to be given to s 23 of the FOI Act. Section 23 relevantly provides:

Requests may be refused in certain cases
23 (1) Where -
(a)a request is expressed to relate to all documents, or to all documents of a specified class, that contain information of a specified…

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 Minister's Department) v Eva Coe 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] ACTSC 15
Decision Date: 7 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minister's Department) v Eva Coe was an appeal brought before the court concerning the refusal of access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The appellant, a department within the Minister's office, had denied the respondent's request for access to specific documents, claiming that granting access would require diverting resources away from other duties. The respondent challenged this decision, arguing that the department had not adequately justified the resources required for the task. The court was required to determine whether the department's refusal to provide access to the documents was justified under the Freedom of Information Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the department's refusal to provide access to the requested documents was justified under the Freedom of Information Act. The court needed to consider whether the resources required to locate and collate the documents were sufficient grounds for denying access. The court also had to assess whether the department had provided an adequate explanation of the resources needed to complete the task and whether the cost of providing access would divert resources from other duties to an unreasonable extent.

After examining the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the department's refusal to provide access to the documents was justified. The court held that the department had provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that providing access to the requested documents would divert resources away from other duties. The court also found that the department had adequately explained the resources required to locate and collate the documents. As a result, the court dismissed the respondent's appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs.

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.