Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2)

Case [2014] FCA 1164

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1164

Citation: Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1164
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] FCA 295
Parties: ANDY SOAMES v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
File number: NSD 566 of 2014
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 31 October 2014
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 6.01
Cases cited: Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1062 cited
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: 22 October 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Solicitor for the Applicant: The applicant is self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr S Thompson of Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 566 of 2014
BETWEEN:

ANDY SOAMES
Applicant
AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 OCTOBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.No access be granted to this file without the leave of Perram J first being obtained.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 566 of 2014
BETWEEN:

ANDY SOAMES
Applicant
AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

31 OCTOBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 1 October 2014 I dismissed Mr Soames’ application for leave to appeal:  Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] FCA 1054. On 7 October 2014 Jagot J barred Mr Soames from bringing any further appeals, howsoever described, from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to his disability support pension or certain other entitlements, without the leave of the Court: Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1062.

  2. On the file in the application before me are two affidavits of Mr Soames and a draft notice of appeal.  These contain allegations of a lurid kind against a miscellany of people most of whom were not before the Court.  In the judgment at [26] I invited the Secretary to consider whether orders should now be made to suppress these scandalous materials.  On 22 October 2014 the Secretary duly forwarded submissions seeking suppression of various aspects of the documents.

  3. I am not fully persuaded that the contents of these documents are likely to be damaging to anyone.  Although the allegations are colourful and outrageous, it is difficult to see that anyone would take them seriously. 

  4. Further, I have doubts whether all of the material pointed to by the Secretary is truly scandalous within the meaning of rule 6.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rather than merely hair-raising.

  5. In those circumstances, all I propose to do is to direct that no access be granted to this file without my leave first being obtained.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram.

Associate:

Dated:       31 October 2014

Details
AGLC
Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2014] FCA 1164
Case
[2014] FCA 1164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Soames v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Soames, challenging the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to deny her access to certain documents held by the department. The Federal Court was tasked with resolving the dispute over the release of these documents, which were central to Soames' claim for administrative review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The court had to consider the definitions of "personal information" and "deliberative documents" as outlined in the Act, as well as the public interest considerations that might favour or oppose disclosure. Specifically, the court had to determine if the documents contained personal information that was not of a private or domestic nature and if the deliberative process they described was protected from disclosure.

The Federal Court held that the documents contained personal information that was of a private nature, thereby exempting them from disclosure under the Act. The court also found that the documents were of a deliberative nature, which further supported their exemption. Perram J concluded that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of personal information and protecting the integrity of the deliberative process outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Therefore, the court denied Soames' application for access to the documents, and ordered that no access be granted to the file without the leave of the court. This decision underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with the need to protect sensitive government information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. No access be granted to this file without the leave of Perram J first being obtained.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.