the place name shown in the following passages in my reasons published on 27 September 2017 be omitted and replaced with the words “Place X”:
(a)paragraph 165:
(i)first line of the quotation; and
(ii)end of the fifth line of substantive text;
(b)paragraph 169:
(i)third line of the quotation;
(c)paragraph 203:
(i)fifth line of the quotation under the heading “20 October Events”; and
(d)paragraph 206:
(i)fourth line of the quotation;
the place name shown in the following passages in my reasons published on 27 September 2017 be omitted and replaced with the words “Place Y”:
(a)paragraph 165:
(i)fifth line of substantive text; and
(b)paragraph 207:
(i)third line of the fifth paragraph of the quotation;
the employment position description shown in the following passages in my reasons published on 27 September 2017 be omitted and replaced with the words “… Officer”:
(a)paragraph 45:
(i)line 5 of the quotation;
(b)paragraph 208:
(i)line 4 of the quotation; and
(c)paragraph 210:
(i)line 2 of the quotation;
the names of five Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) officers not be disclosed and that they be replaced by the pseudonyms “DVA officer A”, “DVA officer B”, “DVA officer C”, “DVA officer D” and “DVA officer E” for the purposes of the application; and
publication of the name of the applicant and of any material tending to identify the five DVA officers be restricted to members and staff of the Tribunal, parties to the proceeding and their representatives, and to the Tribunal’s provider of recording and transcript services.

.........[sgd]........................................................

Deputy President S A Forgie

Catchwords

PRIVACY – published decision – application for further redactions regarding location of work and position title consistent with existing confidentiality order – application for confidentiality order regarding names of APS employees – reputational harm – unanswered allegations – application for confidentiality order granted

Legislation

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 s 34AAA

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 17A, 17B, 35

Privacy Act 1988

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

Public Service Act 1999 ss 7, 10, 13, 15

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 r 8

Administrative Arrangements Order

Administrative Appeals Tribunal – President’s Direction – Allocation of Business to Divisions of the AAT

Cases

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 185; (2009) 181 FCR 130

Guglielmin v Trescothick (No 3) [2005] FCA 139; (2005) 220 ALR 535

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal Of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465

John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131; 26 ALD 471

John Fairfax Group Pty…

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 TYGJ and Information Commissioner

Details

AGLC: TYGJ and Information Commissioner [2017] AATA 1689
Case: [2017] AATA 1689
Decision Date: 13 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, TYGJ, sought further redactions to a published decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, specifically concerning their place of work and position title, which they argued were consistent with an existing confidentiality order. Additionally, TYGJ applied for a new confidentiality order to protect the names of Australian Public Service employees. The Information Commissioner was the respondent. The matter was heard by Deputy President Forgie.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established grounds for further redactions to the published decision regarding their employment details, and whether a new confidentiality order should be made to protect the names of APS employees, considering the potential for reputational harm and the presence of unanswered allegations.

Deputy President Forgie considered the principles governing confidentiality orders and redactions in published decisions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already been granted a confidentiality order regarding their name and other identifying details. In relation to the further redactions sought for location of work and position title, the Tribunal found that these details were not sufficiently specific to identify the applicant, especially given the existing confidentiality order. However, regarding the application to protect the names of APS employees, the Tribunal was persuaded that the potential for reputational harm, particularly in circumstances where allegations remained unanswered, warranted the granting of a confidentiality order for those names.

The Tribunal ordered that the names of the APS employees be redacted from the published decision.

Orders