Purrer v Office of the Information Commissioner

Purrer sought to amend personal information held by the Office of the Information Commissioner (IC), arguing that the records were inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. The IC refused the request, and following a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the decision was affirmed. Purrer then applied for leave to appeal the AAT’s decision to the Federal Court, alleging several grounds of error including denial of natural justice, procedural unfairness, and incorrect application of the legal definition of "inaccurate". The court was required to determine whether these grounds of appeal demonstrated an error of law on the part of the AAT in its review of the IC’s decision.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were not fully particularised and did not demonstrate any error of law by the AAT in its review of the IC's decision. The court noted that the AAT's review was conducted de novo and that it was well-established that a reviewing authority could reach its own conclusions, differing from the original decision maker, in order to make a correct and preferable decision. The court held that the AAT had correctly recognised the shifting of the evidentiary onus and had not misapplied the legal definition of "inaccurate". The court also observed that Purrer had confirmed during the hearing that he was not pursuing any interim injunctions or appointments of independent parties, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal.

The court concluded that Purrer had not demonstrated an error of law in the AAT’s decision to affirm the IC’s refusal to amend the personal information records. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

ORDERS:
The application for leave to appeal or appeal is dismissed.