Veall v Department of Planning and Environment

The case of Veall v Department of Planning and Environment involved a dispute between the applicant, Veall, and the Department of Planning and Environment. Veall sought access to certain government documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The documents in question pertained to a proposal to develop land in Victoria. The Department refused Veall's request on the basis that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the privacy of an individual, specifically the informant, who had provided the information to the Department. Veall sought judicial review of the Department's decision in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central issue in this case was whether the Department correctly applied the public interest test when determining that disclosure of the information would likely prejudice the privacy of the informant. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the Department was correct in its view that the informant's opinion on the proposal constituted personal information. The court also had to consider whether the Department made a correct and preferable decision when it decided to refuse Veall's request for access to the documents.

The court found that the Department had misapplied the public interest test in its assessment of the informant's opinion. The court held that the informant's opinion on the proposal did not constitute personal information as it did not identify the informant. Instead, the only personal information in the documents was the name and contact details of the informant. The court held that the Department was not correct in its view that disclosure of the informant's opinion would likely prejudice the privacy of the informant. The court also held that the Department's decision to refuse Veall's request for access to the documents was not a correct and preferable decision. The court found that the only personal information that needed to be redacted from the documents was the name and contact details of the informant.

The court set aside the Department's decision and ordered that Veall be provided with a copy of the documents, re-redacted to withhold only the information that identified the informant. The Department was given seven days to comply with the order.