QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCATA 20
PARTIES:
RICHARD JOSEPH STELLA (applicant/appellant)
v
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
APL013-24
MATTER TYPE:
Appeals
DELIVERED ON:
18 March 2025
HEARING DATE:
18 November 2024
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member D J McGill SC
ORDERS:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner of 7 December 2023 confirmed.
3. If the respondent wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, it must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and the appellant, within 21 days from the date of this decision.
4. If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
5. If such submissions are filed, the appellant may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and the lawyer for the respondent, within 21 days of the receipt of such submissions.
6. If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.
7. Liberty to apply as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – REVIEW OF DECISIONS – OTHER STATES AND TERRITORIES – Queensland – where the appellant made a request under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) for documents relating to a complaint made about him and the respondent’s management of the complaint – where the Information Commissioner on review decided to refuse to disclose certain information on the basis that disclosure of it would be contrary to the public interest – where the appellant sought disclosure of further documents, some of which were created in connection with the decision on the first request for access - where the Information Commissioner held the decision maker on that request was not an agency for the purposes of the Act – where the appellant appealed to the Appeal Tribunal – where an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal from a decision of the Information Commissioner can only be on a question of law – whether error of law shown
Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 52, s 100, s 118
Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) Sch 4 Part 2 Items 6, 12; Part 3 Items 16, 19
Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCA 24
Re B and Brisbane North Regional Health Authority (1994) 1 QAR 279
Cairns Port Authority v Albietz [1995] 2 Qd R 470
Carmody v Information Commissioner [2018] QCATA 14
Carmody v Information Commissioner (No 3) [2018] QCATA 18
Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462
Deemal-Hall v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] QCATA 131
Ebner…
Continue reading Stella v Griffith University
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCATA 20
- Case
- [2025] QCATA 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Appeal Tribunal needed to determine whether the Information Commissioner's decision contained an error of law. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and concluded that the Commissioner's decision was correct. The Tribunal found no legal error in the Commissioner's determination that the decision-maker was not an agency for the purposes of the Act. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner was confirmed.
In addition to dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal issued several orders concerning costs. If Griffith University wished to seek an order for the costs of the appeal, it was required to submit written arguments and provide copies to the appellant and the Tribunal within 21 days of the decision. The appellant could then respond in writing within 21 days of receiving the submissions. The Tribunal would decide the costs issue without an oral hearing if submissions were filed. If no submissions were received, there would be no order as to costs. The Tribunal also granted liberty to apply for costs.
This decision underscores the limited scope of review available to appellants in such cases, where the Appeal Tribunal is restricted to considering questions of law. The Tribunal's findings support the Commissioner's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and reinforce the importance of ensuring compliance with the legal framework governing information access requests.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner of 7 December 2023 confirmed.
3. If the respondent wants to apply for an order for costs of the appeal, it must file submissions in writing in support of the order sought, and give a copy of them by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President of the Tribunal and the appellant, within 21 days from the date of this decision.
4. If no such submissions are filed, there will be no order as to costs of the appeal.
5. If such submissions are filed, the appellant may file any submissions in writing in opposition to such an order, and give a copy by email to each of the associate to the Deputy President and the lawyer for the respondent, within 21 days of the receipt of such submissions.
6. If submissions as to costs are filed, the question of costs will be decided by the Appeal Tribunal without an oral hearing, under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.
7. Liberty to apply 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.