MORRIS -v- INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT WA OFFICE [2016] WASC 336

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 336
Case No:	GDA:17/2015	Heard:	29 MARCH 2016
Coram:	CORBOY J	Delivered:	17/10/16
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANN MARY MORRIS INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT WA OFFICE ARMADALE HEALTH SERVICE
Catchwords:	Appeal Amendment of information Appeal from decision by the Information Commissioner to cease dealing with a complaint
Legislation:	Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), pt 3, pt 4
Case References:	Attorney General (NSW) v X [2000] NSWCA 199; (2000) 49 NSWLR 653 Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 137; (2009) 179 FCR 554 Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 Crewdson v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWCA 345 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 Francis v Department of Defence [2012] AATA 838; (2012) 59 AAR 35 Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 92; (2015) 233 FCR 315 Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 Re Resch and Department of Veterans' Affairs (1986) 9 ALD 380 Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1995) 59 FCR 6 Western Australian Planning Commission v Questdale Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 32; (2016) 213 LGERA 81

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : MORRIS -v- INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT WA OFFICE [2016] WASC 336 CORAM : CORBOY J HEARD : 29 MARCH 2016 DELIVERED : 17 OCTOBER 2016 FILE NO/S : GDA 17 of 2015 BETWEEN : ANN MARY MORRIS

Appellant

AND

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT WA OFFICE

First Respondent

ARMADALE HEALTH SERVICE

Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Coram : MR S BLUEMMEL

File No : F 222 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal - Amendment of information - Appeal from decision by the Information Commissioner to cease dealing with a complaint

Legislation:

Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), pt 3, pt 4

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Ms S Lloyd

Second Respondent : Mr A Mason

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Principal Legal Officer, Office of the Information Commissioner

Second Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney General (NSW) v X [2000] NSWCA 199; (2000) 49 NSWLR 653
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 137; (2009) 179 FCR 554
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280
Crewdson v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWCA 345
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Francis v Department of Defence [2012] AATA 838; (2012) 59 AAR 35
Haritos v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 92; (2015) 233 FCR 315
Paridis v Settlement Agents…

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 Morris v Information Commissioner At WA Office 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: [2016] WASC 336
Decision Date: 17 OCTOBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an appeal by the respondent, Morris, against a decision by the Information Commissioner to cease dealing with a complaint Morris had made. The dispute centred on Morris's request for amendment of personal information held by the Department of Health and the Commissioner's subsequent decision to cease dealing with the complaint. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the scope of the Commissioner's powers under the Information Privacy Act 2012 (WA) and the appropriate interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the amendment of personal information. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Commissioner had acted beyond his statutory powers and whether the statutory provisions were correctly applied to the facts of the case.

The Federal Court found that the Commissioner's decision to cease dealing with the complaint was within the scope of his statutory powers. The court held that the Commissioner correctly interpreted the statutory provisions regarding the amendment of personal information. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.