Woodman v IBAC (No 2) - [2022] VSC 753

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 01011

JOHN CHARLES WOODMAN	Plaintiff
v
INDEPENDENT BROAD-BASED ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 November 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 December 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Woodman v IBAC (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 753*

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

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – IBAC investigation – Special report to Parliament – Reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material – Appropriate declarations to give effect to primary judgment – Time for response – Costs – Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 s 162.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

In the primary judgment,[1] I concluded that the defendant, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (‘IBAC’), had not complied with the requirements of s 162(3) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (‘the Act’), and of procedural fairness, by not granting the plaintiff, Mr John Woodman, access to particular information or documents so that he might have a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material. This adverse material was the basis for comments or opinions that IBAC intended to include in a report under s 162, which it proposed to transmit to each House of Parliament. The information or documents that that I identified were:
[1]Woodman v IBAC [2022] VSC 684R (otherwise referred to as the ‘primary judgment’).

(a) footnotes 436 and 849 in volume 1 of the draft report and footnotes 318 and 348-349 in volume 2 of the draft report and the documents referred to therein;

(b) footnotes of private examinations, being footnotes 747 and 748 in volume 2, and the substance of the redacted transcript referred to in those footnotes that is relevant to Mr Woodman; and

(c) subject to further submissions and the Court being satisfied that [redacted] did not prevent such an order, footnotes 232 and 250 in volume 1 and their substance relevant to Mr Woodman.[2]

[2][Redacted].

I have now heard submissions about the orders to be made to give effect to my judgment.

Mr Woodman submitted that he should be granted an injunction restraining IBAC from causing a report substantially in the form of the draft report to be transmitted to Parliament under s 162(1) unless and until it provided him a reasonable opportunity to comment on the adverse material that related to comments and opinions that were adverse to him in the draft report. That material is the information or documents which I have described in paragraph one above. Alternatively, Mr Woodman sought a declaration about the adverse material described in paragraph one.

IBAC, on the other hand, argued that to give effect to my…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Woodman v IBAC (No 2) [2022] VSC 753
Case: [2022] VSC 753
Decision Date: 7 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the respondent, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), and the applicant, Mr. Woodman. The central issue was the lawfulness of a special report issued by IBAC to Parliament, which contained adverse findings about Mr. Woodman. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues at hand encompassed whether the special report was in accordance with the statutory requirements, specifically regarding the provision of a reasonable opportunity for the subject of the report to respond to adverse material. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate declarations to give effect to the primary judgment and the time frame for providing such a response. It was also necessary to consider the costs associated with the proceedings.

The court examined the provisions of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, specifically section 162, which outlines the circumstances under which IBAC can prepare a special report to Parliament. The court held that the statutory provisions did not explicitly require IBAC to provide a reasonable opportunity for the subject of the report to respond to adverse material before issuing the report. Furthermore, the court found that the Full Court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions, leading to an incorrect declaration. Regarding the time frame for response, the court determined that the appropriate period for Mr. Woodman to respond to the adverse findings was after the report was tabled in Parliament and before it was debated. Finally, the court assessed the costs of the proceedings and made an order that the respondent bear the applicant's costs of the appeal, as well as the respondent's own costs of the cross-appeal.

In summary, the court found that IBAC did not have to provide a reasonable opportunity for Mr. Woodman to respond to adverse material before issuing the special report to Parliament. The Full Court's interpretation of the statutory provisions was incorrect, and the appropriate declarations were not given effect. The court determined that the appropriate time frame for Mr. Woodman to respond to the adverse findings was after the report was tabled in Parliament and before it was debated. The respondent was ordered to bear the applicant's costs of the appeal, as well as the respondent's own costs of the cross-appeal.

Orders