RAMSHAW v Sheridan - [2011] WADC 182

RAMSHAW -v- SHERIDAN [2011] WADC 182

Last Update: 03/11/2011

RAMSHAW -v- SHERIDAN [2011] WADC 182
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WADC 182
Case No:	CIV:2944/2008	Heard:	12 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	26/10/2011
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	KIM RAMSHAW RICHARD SHERIDAN ACCESS HOUSING ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Catchwords:	Practice Application to require plaintiff to make a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1982) to Centrelink
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Attard v Hore [2002] QSC 437 Merkuloff v Yalisheff [2003] NSWSC 1183 Wray v Wray [2007] NSWSC 164

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RAMSHAW -v- SHERIDAN [2011] WADC 182 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 12 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 26 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 2944 of 2008 BETWEEN : KIM RAMSHAW

Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD SHERIDAN

First Defendant

ACCESS HOUSING ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application to require plaintiff to make a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (1982) to Centrelink

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T P Heard

First Defendant : Ms D M Templeman

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradford & Co

First Defendant : Gilchrist Connell

Second Defendant : Jarman McKenna

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

Attard v Hore [2002] QSC 437
Merkuloff v Yalisheff [2003] NSWSC 1183
Wray v Wray [2007] NSWSC 164

(Page 3)

1 REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The first defendant has brought an application for orders that the plaintiff or her authorised representative apply to Centrelink under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI) using Centrelink form FI031 for copies of all primary documents comprising the plaintiff's Centrelink file for the period 27 September 2002 to the present. Included in the application is an order that the first defendant pay any Centrelink fees and/or Centrelink processing charges applied to the application made by the plaintiff.

Context

2 The plaintiff pleads she was an administrative assistant and on 27 September 2007 was attempting to descend stairs at the first defendant's premises. A dog ran under the plaintiff's feet causing the plaintiff to become unbalanced, as a result of which she fell and suffered injury to her right knee, and lumbar spine with resulting sequelae, including depression.

3 As a result of the injury, the plaintiff pleads that she has been rendered totally unfit to return to work as an administrative assistant and claims an economic loss of at least $800 net per week to age 65. The first defendant does not admit the loss of earnings pleaded, both past and future.

4 In order to deal with that issue at trial, the first defendant seeks to obtain information as to what the plaintiff has told Centrelink.

5 The plaintiff opposes the application and says that an application to Centrelink has been made and…

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.

Continue reading RAMSHAW v Sheridan

Details

AGLC: RAMSHAW v Sheridan [2011] WADC 182
Case: [2011] WADC 182
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application in Ramshaw v Sheridan arose in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, with the plaintiff seeking to compel the defendant to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to Centrelink. The plaintiff, Mr Ramshaw, sought information from Centrelink concerning the defendant's eligibility for Centrelink benefits and the circumstances of those benefits. The defendant, Ms Sheridan, argued that the information was not relevant to the substantive litigation and that the request would unnecessarily cause her embarrassment and distress.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application to compel the defendant to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act was appropriate in the circumstances. The court had to balance the principles of open justice and the public interest in transparency against the potential harm to the defendant's privacy and the risk of vexatious litigation. The court considered the relevance of the information to the substantive litigation and the potential for the information to be obtained through alternative means, such as direct application by the plaintiff to Centrelink.

The court found that the information sought was highly relevant to the substantive litigation and that the defendant's arguments for privacy and distress were not sufficient to outweigh the public interest in transparency. The court concluded that the application to compel the defendant to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act was appropriate and ordered that the defendant make the request within the specified timeframe. The court emphasised that the order was limited to the specific request and did not prejudice any other application that the plaintiff might make under the Freedom of Information Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.