JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7-8, 14-15 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Woodman v IBAC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 684*

* This is a redacted version of the judgment that was published to the parties on a confidential basis.

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – IBAC investigation – Preparation of proposed report – Adverse comments and opinions – Reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material – Entitlement to procedural fairness – Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 ss 8, 15, 42, 45-50, 60, 116-120, 162-164, 166.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N Wood SC Mr C Viney	Duxton Hill
For the Defendant	Ms F Gordon SC Mr J Maxwell	Solicitor for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Relief claimed................................................................................................................................ 2
Background.................................................................................................................................... 3
IBAC’s public examinations........................................................................................................ 4
Draft Report................................................................................................................................... 5
Footnotes........................................................................................................................................ 6

The IBAC Act...................................................................................................................................... 8

Investigative powers..................................................................................................................... 9
Special reports............................................................................................................................. 10
The IBAC Act’s control of the disclosure of information...................................................... 12
Private examinations and protected documents.................................................................... 16

Mr Woodman’s grounds................................................................................................................. 17

Ground 1 – failure to provide Mr Woodman with a reasonable opportunity to respond to ‘adverse material’ – non-compliance with s 162(3)...................................................................... 17
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 17
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 21
Analysis of ground 1......................................................................................................... 23

Ground 2 – Informing Mr Woodman of the evidence on which IBAC relied to support an adverse comment or opinion is part of providing a ‘reasonable opportunity’ to respond... 27
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 27
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 28
Analysis of ground 2......................................................................................................... 29

Ground 3 – procedural unfairness and/or legal unreasonableness.................................... 30
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 30
Mr Woodman’s submissions – legal reasonableness................................................... 31
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 31
IBAC’s submissions – legal reasonableness................................................................... 33
Analysis of ground 3......................................................................................................... 33

Ground 3A – IBAC has no power to publish the report insofar as s 162(3) is not complied with, procedural fairness is not afforded, and/or legal reasonableness is not adhered to 35
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 36
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 36
Analysis of ground 3A...................................................................................................... 36

Ground 4 – Mr Woodman has not been given a ‘reasonable’ opportunity to respond.... 37
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 37
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 38
Analysis of ground 4......................................................................................................... 38

Footnotes............................................................................................................................................ 38

Volume 1, footnote 79................................................................................................................. 40
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 40
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 40
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 40

Volume 1, footnote 232............................................................................................................... 42
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 42
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 42
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 43

Volume 1, footnote 233............................................................................................................... 44
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 44
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 44
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 44

Volume 1, footnote 250............................................................................................................... 44
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 45
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 45
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 45

Volume 1, footnote 329............................................................................................................... 47
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 47
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 47
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 48

Volume 1, footnote 436............................................................................................................... 48
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 48
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 48
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 49

Volume 1, footnote 558............................................................................................................... 49
Mr Woodman’s submissions........................................................................................... 50
IBAC’s submissions........................................................................................................... 50
Analysis............................................................................................................................... 50

Volume 1, footnote 591............................................................................................................... 50
Mr…

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 Woodman v IBAC

Details

AGLC: Woodman v IBAC [2022] VSC 684
Case: [2022] VSC 684
Decision Date: 10 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Woodman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC). The nature of the dispute centred around an investigation conducted by IBAC into Woodman's conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues before the court were whether IBAC had breached procedural fairness by not providing Woodman with a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse comments and opinions before the preparation of a proposed report. The court was also required to determine whether the statutory framework governing IBAC's conduct provided adequate protection of procedural fairness rights.

The court examined the provisions of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, particularly sections 8, 15, 42, 45-50, 60, 116-120, 162-164, and 166. It assessed whether the statutory provisions allowed for the necessary procedural fairness when IBAC was preparing a proposed report. The court found that the statutory framework did not explicitly provide for a reasonable opportunity for the subject of an investigation to respond to adverse material before the preparation of a proposed report. The court concluded that the statutory provisions did not adequately protect procedural fairness rights in this context.

Following the court's reasoning and analysis, it determined that IBAC had indeed breached procedural fairness by failing to provide Woodman with a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse comments and opinions before the preparation of the proposed report. The court found that the statutory framework did not provide adequate protection of procedural fairness rights in this scenario. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Woodman, finding that IBAC had breached procedural fairness by not allowing him to respond to the adverse material before the preparation of the proposed report. The court's final orders included a declaration that IBAC had breached procedural fairness and an injunction preventing IBAC from distributing the proposed report until it complied with the principles of procedural fairness.

Orders