Park v Information Commissioner - [2021] QCATA 109

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Park v Information Commissioner [2021] QCATA 109

PARTIES: KENNETH EUGENE PARK

(applicant/appellant)

v

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST

ORORA LTD

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL356-20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

ORDERS:

1.       Appeal dismissed.

2.       If any party seeks an order for costs, the party is to file and serve on the other parties written submissions identifying the order sought, and setting out the grounds supporting it, within twenty-one days of this decision.

3.       If such submissions are filed, the party from whom costs are sought may file and serve submissions in response within twenty-one days from receipt of the served submissions.

4.       If submissions in response are filed and served, the party seeking costs may file and serve submissions in reply within fourteen days.

5.       If no submissions seeking costs are filed within twenty-one days from this decision, there be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – REVIEW OF DECISIONS – OTHER STATES – Queensland – appeal on a question of law – documents sought comprise exempt information – contractual confidentiality – scope of exemption – relevance of other Acts – no error of law shown.

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) s 48, s 119, s 125, Schedule 3 s 8(1).

Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Office of the Information Commissioner [2020] QCATA 52
BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority (2003) 28 WAR 187
Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming v Farquhar Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 202
Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia [2020] HCA 19
Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2010) 241 CLR 320
Powell v Queensland University of Technology [2018] 2 Qd R 276

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondents:

Self-represented, except for the fourth respondent, represented by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, solicitors.

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

From 1957 to 2013 a paper mill was operated on a large site near Petrie. Following the closure of the mill, in 2015 the fourth respondent sold the site to the second respondent, with a view to its use as a tertiary education facility. Apart from the contract of sale, those respondents entered into three further contracts concerning the sale between 2017 and 2019. In 2018 a development agreement in relation to the site was entered into by the second and third respondents. A campus has been constructed on part of the site, and has been operated by the third respondent since early last year.
Those five contracts were covered by an application made by the appellant on 6 August 2019 to the second respondent for access under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (“the Act”). The second respondent, after consulting the…

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 Park v Information Commissioner 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: [2021] QCATA 109
Decision Date: 15 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Park commenced an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner in relation to an application for access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Commissioner found that the documents were exempt from disclosure under section 30A(2)(b) of the Act due to contractual confidentiality. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, which held that the Commissioner had not erred in law in determining that the documents sought by Park were exempt from disclosure.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's decision to exempt the documents from disclosure under section 30A(2)(b) of the Act was lawful. The court examined the scope of the exemption and whether it was appropriate to consider the provisions of other Acts in determining the scope of the exemption. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and that there was no error of law in the decision.

The court found that the documents sought by Park were subject to a contractual confidentiality obligation, which was sufficient to bring them within the scope of section 30A(2)(b) of the Act. The court rejected Park's argument that the provisions of other Acts should be considered in determining the scope of the exemption, holding that the Act should be interpreted in its own terms and that the scope of the exemption was not dependent on the provisions of other Acts. The court further held that the Commissioner's decision was not unreasonable and that there was no error of law in the decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. If any party sought an order for costs, they were required to file and serve written submissions identifying the order sought and setting out the grounds supporting it within twenty-one days of the decision. If such submissions were filed, the party from whom costs were sought could file and serve submissions in response within twenty-one days from receipt of the served submissions. If submissions in response were filed and served, the party seeking costs could file and serve submissions in reply within fourteen days. If no submissions seeking costs were filed within twenty-one days from the decision, there was to be no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. If any party seeks an order for costs, the party is to file and serve on the other parties written submissions identifying the order sought, and setting out the grounds supporting it, within twenty-one days of this decision.

3. If such submissions are filed, the party from whom costs are sought may file and serve submissions in response within twenty-one days from receipt of the served submissions.

4. If submissions in response are filed and served, the party seeking costs may file and serve submissions in reply within fourteen days.

5. If no submissions seeking costs are filed within twenty-one days from this decision, there be no order as to 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.

CITATION:	Park v Information Commissioner [2021] QCATA 109
PARTIES:	KENNETH EUGENE PARK
(applicant/appellant)
v
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE COAST ORORA LTD
(respondents)
APPLICATION NO/S:	APL356-20
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	15 September 2021
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Judicial Member D J McGill SC
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. If any party seeks an order for costs, the party is to file and serve on the other parties written submissions identifying the order sought, and setting out the grounds supporting it, within twenty-one days of this decision. 3. If such submissions are filed, the party from whom costs are sought may file and serve submissions in response within twenty-one days from receipt of the served submissions. 4. If submissions in response are filed and served, the party seeking costs may file and serve submissions in reply within fourteen days. 5. If no submissions seeking costs are filed within twenty-one days from this decision, there be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – REVIEW OF DECISIONS – OTHER STATES – Queensland – appeal on a question of law – documents sought comprise exempt information – contractual confidentiality – scope of exemption – relevance of other Acts – no error of law shown. Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) s 48, s 119, s 125, Schedule 3 s 8(1). Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Office of the Information Commissioner [2020] QCATA 52 BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority (2003) 28 WAR 187 Commissioner for Liquor and Gaming v Farquhar Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 202 Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia [2020] HCA 19 Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2010) 241 CLR 320 Powell v Queensland University of Technology [2018] 2 Qd R 276
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondents:	Self-represented, except for the fourth respondent, represented by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, solicitors.
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)