Raven v The University of Sydney

The case of Raven v The University of Sydney involved a dispute regarding the refusal by the University to provide certain information sought by the applicant under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The applicant sought information pertaining to the University’s handling of complaints against a professor. The matter was brought before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for review of the University's decision. The central legal issues the Tribunal had to address were whether the University's refusal to disclose the requested information was justified under the GIPA Act and whether certain confidential evidence could be presented to the Tribunal in the absence of the public and the applicant.

The Tribunal reviewed the University’s decision to refuse access to the information and examined the prescribed public interest considerations under the GIPA Act. The University argued that disclosure of the information could prejudice the supply of confidential information, the effective exercise of its functions, and the competitive neutrality of its research. The applicant contended that the information was necessary to substantiate claims of negligent conduct by the University. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof lay with the University to justify the refusal under the GIPA Act. The evidence presented by the University was deemed confidential, and the Tribunal concluded that it was necessary to hear some of this evidence in the absence of the public and the applicant to prevent potential disclosure of information that could have an overriding public interest against disclosure.

Following the review, the Tribunal affirmed the University’s decision to refuse access to the information sought by the applicant. The Tribunal found that the University had demonstrated sufficient grounds to withhold the information under the public interest exceptions outlined in the GIPA Act. Consequently, the applicant’s request for the disclosure of the information was denied. The Tribunal also upheld the University’s application to hear confidential evidence in the absence of the public and the applicant, considering it necessary to prevent the potential disclosure of sensitive information.