Stella v Griffith University[2025] QCA 140

[2025] QCA 140

COURT OF APPEAL

BRADLEY JA

Appeal No 1851 of 2025

QCATA No 13 of 2024

RICHARD JOSEPH STELLAApplicant

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITYRespondent

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025

JUDGMENT

BRADLEY JA:  On 22 April 2025, Mr Stella applied for leave to appeal from a final decision of the appeal tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.  He named the University as the respondent.  The appeal tribunal decision was made by a judicial member on 18 March 2025.  By it, the appeal tribunal dismissed Mr Stella’s appeal from a decision of the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) on an external review made on 7 December 2023 and confirmed the Commissioner’s decision to refuse Mr Stella access to certain documents held by the University.

As Mr Stella noted in his written submissions, the Commissioner was obliged not to include “information that is claimed to be exempt information or contrary to public interest information”^[1] in the reasons for the decision.  When the appeal tribunal considered Mr Stella’s appeal, it adopted what Mr Stella described as its “general practice”, namely, “to keep the disputed material from the applicant during the proceedings”.

On 18 March 2024, the appeal tribunal directed the parties to file two copies of an indexed and paginated hearing bundle separated into a Part A and a Part B.  The tribunal directed that the Part A documents were “to be documents in the form as currently released to the applicant", and the Part B documents would be “documents in specific issue in the appeal”, that is those documents to which the applicant sought access and was denied in an unredacted form.

The tribunal directed that the applicant is, “not presently permitted access to the Part B documents pending further order of the Tribunal in this matter.”  The same day, the tribunal also directed:

“Until further order, pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the publication of the Part B documents is prohibited.  For the avoidance of doubt, this prohibition does not apply to the redacted versions of the same documents previously provided by the Respondent to the Applicant.”

The power of the appeal tribunal to make these non-publication orders depended upon the tribunal considering it necessary for one of the reasons listed in section 66(2)(a) to (e) of the QCAT Act, namely: to avoid interfering with the proper administration of justice; or to avoid endangering the physical and mental health or safety of a person; or to avoid offending public decency or morality; or to avoid the publication of confidential information or information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or for any other reason in the interests of justice.

From the material before this Court, it does not appear that the appeal tribunal has made any further order altering or setting aside the non-publication orders made on 18 March 2024.  The Judicial Member who heard the matter in the tribunal did not disclose the disputed material in the published reasons for the appeal tribunal’s decision.

Mr Stella now asks this Court to order the University to disclose two of the documents to which both the Commissioner and the appeal tribunal found the University had rightly refused him access.  He filed his application on 26 June 2025.  He seeks an order that the University disclose the two documents by delivering to him a copy of each, pursuant to rule 223(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), or pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

There are some difficulties affecting the application.  The powers in section 223(1) do not apply to an appeal.  Their operation is limited by the effect of rule 209(1).  If the powers did apply, or if the Court directed that they do apply, then the Court could only make such an order in accordance with that rule if there were special circumstances and the interests of justice required it.  This is the effect of rule 223(4)(a) in the present circumstances.

It is obvious that an order requiring the University to disclose the two documents to Mr Stella would be directly contrary to the appeal tribunal’s non-publication orders.  Mr Stella seeks this outcome now, in the course of his appeal, before his application for leave to appeal has been considered or determined by the Court.

He says that disclosure, pursuant to an order of this Court, would be of a different nature and quality to access he sought and seeks in the appeal.  This is because the disclosure to him of these documents would be subject to an implied undertaking as to their use.

The rules, including those on which Mr Stella relies, are to be applied with the objective of avoiding undue delay, expense, and technicality, and facilitating the just and expeditious resolution of the real issues in the proceedings at a minimum of expense.  This is the philosophy set out in rule 5.  It is appropriate to consider Mr Stella’s disclosure application consistently with that philosophy.

Mr Stella submitted that he wants the documents because they are “central” to his proposed first ground of appeal.  That ground is:

“The Appeal Tribunal reached its decision on the basis of a hearing bundle supplied by the Respondent which either omitted or obscured crucial information, or was lost by the QCAT Registry prior to the hearing.  In either case, the Tribunal could not have discharged its duty, pursuant to [section] 28(3)(e) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).”

Ground 1 alleges some facts about the “bundle” used by the appeal tribunal.  Specifically, that it did not include “crucial information” or that it was “lost” or perhaps both of these things.  These facts may or may not be in issue between Mr Stella and the University in the appeal.  If they are, plainly they are a factual dispute.  If the two disputed documents were disclosed to Mr Stella, he could not compare them to the documents in Part B of the hearing bundle.  He is not permitted access to Part B, and it cannot be published to him.

Mr Stella, of course, might invite the Court to undertake a comparison.  If he did so, it is difficult to see how that could alter the outcome on ground 1.  It would remain a ground deeply embedded in factual questions or, at best, a mixed question of fact and law.  Mr Stella needs the Court’s leave to appeal.  He may appeal only on a question of law.  This is the effect of section 150(3) of the QCAT Act.  The Court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a final decision of the appeal tribunal on a question of fact or on a mixed question of fact and law.^[2]

The production of these documents would not assist the applicant in the establishment of ground 1.  It concerns what happened at the tribunal.  One would expect, it could only be determined by looking at the documents that were before the tribunal.  It could not be decided or proved by regard to two documents that the University has.

Whether the documents to which access is sought, including these two documents, fall within the relevant exemptions under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) are different matters.  It seems not to be the central matter in issue in ground 1.  As well, no special circumstances, and no compelling question concerning the interests of justice, has been identified that would require disclosure of the two documents.

The application for disclosure is dismissed.  Is there anything further Mr Stella?

APPLICANT:  No other applications, your Honour.

BRADLEY JA:  Is there anything further Ms Nagorcka?

MS NAGORCKA:  Your Honour, we would apply for costs of the application.

BRADLEY JA:  Is there anything you want to say about that?

MS NAGORCKA:  Only that my client has been put to the expense of responding to this application.  In the ordinary course, the costs would follow the event.

BRADLEY JA:  I understand.

MS NAGORCKA:  Thank you, your Honour.

BRADLEY JA:  Mr Stella, is there anything you want to say about that?

APPLICANT:  I’d oppose the grant of costs, firstly, because the substantive matter hasn’t been determined yet; and, secondly, because I believe that the application was made in good faith.  Document 49 is part of the hearing bundle at issue, and as I’m not a lawyer myself, I’d ask that I have the opportunity to make written submissions, having had the benefit of better understanding what the law is as it relates to costs in interlocutory applications.

BRADLEY JA:  Sorry?  You want to get some advice about that?

APPLICANT:  No.  Just read the case law and better understand it, but it had been my understanding that costs would be something to be determined at the end of proceedings, rather than after an interlocutory application.

BRADLEY JA:  Have you ever had an interlocutory application in the court?

APPLICANT:  Isn’t that what this is?

BRADLEY JA:  Yes.  Have you ever done one before?

APPLICANT:  No, your Honour.

BRADLEY JA:  Well, ordinarily costs are determined when the parties are before the court.  That is because the matter is fresh in everyone’s mind.  It is efficient to dispose of it.  It reduces the further cost that is involved and people going away, preparing written submissions, sending them in, having the other side read them, reply to them, maybe put in their own submissions, maybe there is a reply to the response, and then later a judicial officer has to sit, and consider it, bring the whole hearing back to mind, and make a decision about it.  So you can understand why the efficiency is affected by deferring a decision.

APPLICANT:  I appreciate that, your Honour.  However, I would ask, on the basis that I’m an unrepresented litigant – that I’m not in a position to argue on that before you right now, and, therefore, would ask the opportunity - - -

BRADLEY JA:  Well, can I ask why you are not in a position to do that?

APPLICANT:  Because it had been my understanding that costs would be determined depending on who was successful in the appeal itself, not in the interlocutory application.

MS NAGORCKA:  Your Honour - - -

BRADLEY JA:  All right.  Ms Nagorcka, is there anything you want to say in reply?

MS NAGORCKA:  Just to note paragraph 2 of our written submissions, your Honour, which submits that the application ought to be dismissed with costs.

BRADLEY JA:  Yes.

MS NAGORCKA:  Thank you.

BRADLEY JA:  What I propose to do is order that the respondent’s costs are part of their costs in the appeal in any event.

MS NAGORCKA:  Thank you, your Honour.

BRADLEY JA:  Now, is there anything else?  Thanks.  I think we have another application.