Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Underwood v Department of Housing and Public Works[2016] QCATA 156

Underwood v Department of Housing and Public Works[2016] QCATA 156

CITATION:

Underwood v Department of Housing and Public Works & Anor [2016] QCATA 156

PARTIES:

Helen Underwood

(Applicant)

v

Department of Housing and Public Works

(First Respondent)

The Information Commissioner

(Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL126-16

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

30 August 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The application made by Ms Underwood on 5 July 2016 that the Department prepare, file and serve a copy of the information in issue is dismissed and the orders sought are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES –  OTHER MATTERS –  where the applicant appealed the decision of the Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) –  where the parties were directed by the Tribunal to file material relating to the appeal – where the applicant filed an application for miscellaneous matters relating to the integrity of documents and information in issue produced by the respondents pursuant to those directions – where the application was dismissed –  where the applicant requested reasons for the decision

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 4(c)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:

Helen Underwood appearing on behalf of herself

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Bowman, C.A. on behalf of the Department of Housing and Public Works

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Plunkett, M. on behalf of the Information Commissioner

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Application

  1. [1]
    On 5 July 2016 the applicant, Ms Underwood applied for the following directions:
  1. Department of Housing and Public Works prepare, file and serve a proper copy of information in issue by 15 July 2016; addressing it with Justice Thomas’ redaction requests, with page numbering i.e. not blank pages; with a “black (red) box” with a section of the Act; no “black (red) box” pages 2-29 94(1)(a) etc – the documents lack integrity under any circumstances; are not identical with information released. 
  2. NB: “giving access to a portion of a document will disclose that it is a reasonably considered not relevant/exempt etc. to the access application”
  1. [2]
    The application set out the following reasons for the directions sought
  1. “Section 73, section 74 and section 75 apply: information deleted; no consultation; OIC advised exemptions of documents with only relevant information deleted – information in issue not ascertainable; not compliant at UCPR appealed with principles; not stamped as filed with tribunal; no detail of schedule of documents; pages sought to be consecutively numbered; blank pages are unacceptable; each document should show numbered pages, date, reference, sent to and from, subject, signatures, contact details etc. – if information is exempt/irrelevant etc. that portion of information only should be redacted with a box and details of the exemption. Blank and, unnumbered pages can be used as many times as required for whatever purpose, wherever it suits; no pro disclosure bias; non-compliant RTI Act’s objects; obfuscated”
  1. [3]
    The applicant filed submissions on 1 August 2016.
  2. [4]
    The respondent filed submissions on 19 August 2016.
  3. [5]
    The hearing of this application took place on 30 August 2016.
  4. [6]
    On 16 September 2016, the applicant filed a request for reasons.

Previous Directions

  1. [7]
    At a directions hearing on 31 May 2016, the Appeal Tribunal directed that:
  1. The Department of Housing and Public Works is to:
    1. file in the Tribunal two (2) copies of the information in issue the subject of the Information Commissioners decision; and
    2. file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Helen Underwood one (1) copy of the documents referred to in 1.a redacted so as to remove any referenced to the information in issue that would disclose the information in issue or render these proceedings nugatory, by:

4:00pm on 22 June 2016.

  1. The Information Commissioner is to:
    1. file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to the Department of Housing and Public Works one (1) copy of an appeal book containing the documents relied upon in making its decision and;
    2. file in the Tribunal two (2) copies and give to Helen Underwood one (1) copy of the documents referred to in 2.a redacted so as to remove any reference to the information in issue that would disclose the information in issue or render these proceedings nugatory, by:

4:00pm on 15 July 2016.

  1. [8]
    The application for directions by the applicant seeks an order relating to the information in issue, which is referred to in order 1(a) and (b).

The submissions of the parties

  1. [9]
    The applicant filed lengthy submissions. Regrettably, many of the submissions were of little relevance to the directions sought by way of the application filed 5 July 2016.
  2. [10]
    The submissions contain broad and general statements regarding:
  1. The Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (‘RTI Act’) including references to the background of the Act (the Solomon Report);[1]
  2. Description of the Office of Information Commissioner;[2]
  3. A summary of some aspects of the RTI Act;[3]
  4. Recommendations headed “proper or best practice redaction modality”: ‘best practice’ information release apparently prepared by the applicant;[4]
  5. Twenty-Eight recommendations apparently prepared by the applicant[5], which seem to contain suggestions by the applicant as to how the Office of Information Commissioner should operate;
  6. A description of “the public interest”;[6]
  7. A section on “openness and accountability;[7]
  8. A section headed “transparency” which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;[8]
  9. A section on objects – RTI Act which contains the word “(incomplete)” but sets out the test of section 3 of the Act;[9]
  10. A section on “pro disclosure bias”;[10]
  11. A section headed “oversights/scrutiny – current legislation”, which contains the word “(incomplete)” with broadly high level descriptive observations;
  12. A section headed “release RTI documents/public records”, which contains the word “(incomplete)” and sets out the text of some of the legislation;[11]
  13. A section headed “basic tenets of document integrity”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;[12]
  14. A section headed “Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – appeal requirements”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  15. A section headed “background – agency “deemed decision”: refusal of access”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  16. A section headed “current redaction modality”, which contains the word “(incomplete)”, but with a commentary which touches upon the current application;[13]
  17. A section headed “Four” which has no content other than the word “incomplete”;
  18. A section headed “obfuscation”, which contains the word “(incomplete)” and a short commentary regarding the current application;
  19. A section headed “OIC guidelines”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  20. A section headed “scoping of documents/public records”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  21. A section headed “Schedule of documents”, which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  22. A section headed “Page numbering” which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  23. A section headed “Exemptions – in the public interest” which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”;
  24. A section headed “Questions raised: validity of the decision; and proper conduct in office” which has no content other than the word “(incomplete)”; and
  25. Annexures to the submissions include a section on “abuse of public trust – known deliberate intentioned obstructions (Annexure 1).[14]
  1. [11]
    Of possible relevance to the directions sought are the following submissions.
  2. [12]
    Recommendation 16,[15] reads: “OIC cease and desist only providing a “schedule of information in issue”: creating a convoluted obfuscation and mechination of unascertainable and/or unidentifiable RTI documents released; requiring many “too-ing” and “frow-ing” gymnastics between both schedules: OIC’s preliminary review; OIC’s amended advisement; OIC’s decision: schedule of “information in issue only”; and agencies actual non-identical released information with any “schedule of documents”; agency now provided to QCAT “documents in issue” identical to OIC’s decision without any schedule of documents/contents”.
  3. [13]
    This recommendation seems to contain the criticism that the information provided was in more than one document requiring cross-referencing and looking from one document to another.
  4. [14]
    The balance of this section seems to relate to a previous dispute between the applicant and the respondent.
  5. [15]
    Recommendation 26: appeal process – QCAT Tribunal.[16]
  6. [16]
    This recommendation is that appeal books should comply with the principles set out the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (‘UCPR’) and Court of Appeal Guidelines for Civil Appeal record books. This complaint would not appear to relate to the information in issue (as is referred to in Ms Underwood’s application) but to the appeal book, which is referred to in order number 2.  No authority is advanced for the proposition that an appeal book filed in Right to Information proceedings should comply with the UCPR.
  7. [17]
    Recommendation 27: “redaction requirements (including computer redaction).”
  8. [18]
    In this section, recommendations are made as to the way in which redaction should occur, but again are nonspecific.
  9. [19]
    The criticism contained in the section on current redaction modality (incomplete) is that “the majority “released information” lack any form of integrity without page numbers, details of information in issue, total pages with a red box outline with minimalist information regarding the reason for redaction; if the blank inserted pages have any relevance – as such are not identifiable”.[17]
  10. [20]
    The submission continues, “to suggest there is any possibility of accountability, transparency, openness and independence in this redaction methodology is mind boggling and a complete and utter nonsense to say the least – anyone can produce a blank sheet of paper (reuse it any number of times): with or without a page number and then manually inserted i.e. not computer generated with Adobe’s professional (PDF) Software during the process of redaction; write a section of the Act indicating the contents of the document will not be dealt with on the basis it is “frivolous vexatious misconceived or lacking in substance” and/or exempt having been provided in an irrelevant prior RTI access application where the same information was more than likely provided in the same manner. This also amounts to sleight of hand manipulations and…”
  11. [21]
    The criticism seems to relate to the way in which the papers were redacted and the lack of page numbers. It appears to dispute the validity of the way the RTI Act is applied.
  12. [22]
    The respondent, Department of Housing and Public Works, submits the following:[18]
  1. In compliance with the Appeal Tribunal directions dated 31 May 2016 the Department:
    1. filed in the Tribunal two copies of the information in issue;
    2. filed in the Tribunal two copies of the information redacted so as to remove any reference to information in issue that would disclose the information in issue or render the proceedings nugatory; and
    3. By letter 21 June 2016, served the Information Commissioner deed and by letter, dated 21 June 2016 served the redacted version on the applicant.
  2. The Department has been unable to identify any specific, properly particularised allegation made by Ms Underwood in respect of the information in issue.
  3. In accordance with the Appeal Tribunal direction dated 31 May 2016 the Department prepared filed and served a proper copy of the information in issue.
  4. The information in issue which was filed consists only of those documents to which the applicant was either refused access or partially refused access as a consequence of the Information Commissioner’s decision dated 17 March 2016.  Any documents to which full access was granted have not been included.
  5. The documents served upon Ms Underwood were redacted so as to remove any reference to the information in issue that would disclose the information in issue or render the proceedings nugatory.
  6. The redaction was undertaken in the course of an external review using Redax software, which is utilised by various government agencies for the purpose.
  7. The redaction was undertaken by an appropriately authorised and experienced departmental Right to Information officer in consultation with officers of the Officer of the Information Commissioner.
  8. Each page of the information in issue served upon Ms Underwood includes the relevant page numbers used by the Information Commissioner and also the legislative basis on which access was totally or partially refused.
  9. Ms Underwood has access to a schedule of documents in issue, which was attached to the decision of Claire Smith, Information Commissioner dated 17 March 2016.

The Hearing

  1. [23]
    At the hearing, Ms Underwood raised a number of issues, which were outside the ambit of the application, which was made.
  2. [24]
    Ms Underwood handed up a sheet dated 30 August 2016, which contained a list of “orders sought by Helen Underwood”.
  3. [25]
    Those orders were:
    1. Clint Bowman: First Respondent’s council is removed from these matters (Section 48(2)(b) QCAT Act) (sic).
    2. Orders of the Tribunal have not been complied with (Section 41 (1)(a) QCAT Act).
    3. Contravenes a decision (Section 213 QCAT Act).
    4. False and misleading conduct (Section 216 QCAT Act).
    5. Collusion, complicity (Section 217 QCAT Act).
    6. Contempt (Section 218 QCAT Act).
    7. Caused unnecessary disadvantage (Section 48(2)(b) QCAT Act) (Section 48 QCAT Act).
    8. Costs order (Section 48 (2)(c) QCAT Act) (Section 102 QCAT Act) (Section 103 QCAT Act) (Section 108 QCAT Act).
    9. The deliberate intentioned manner in which the documentation has been presented to the tribunal is fatal to any exempt claim i.e. the protection is now nugatory.
    10. In the alternative any exemptions claimed are waived because: exemptions not claimed in an earlier stage of the proceedings (being a deemed “no decision” refusal to give access) i.e. the protections are now nugatory.
    11. That the information subject to this proceeding must therefore be made available to the applicant within 7 days of this order being made.
    12. The appeal continue: the law has not been just decided.
  4. [26]
    Ms Underwood requested that she be allowed the opportunity to place her “objections on record” and made a number of complaints about which she sought no orders.[19]
  5. [27]
    The application made by Ms Underwood was in broad terms seeking directions that the Department “prepare, file and serve a proper copy of the information in issue”, “addressing with it Justice Thomas’ reduction request, with page numbering i.e. not blank pages: with a “black (red) box” with a section of the act no “black (red) box” pages 2 – 29 94(1)(a) etc. – the documents lack integrity under any circumstances; are not identical with information released.”
  6. [28]
    Ms Underwood was asked to provide details of the inadequacies in the information in issue so as to enable proper consideration of the application and a specificity in orders made so that all parties could be aware what was required of them.[20]
  7. [29]
    Ms Underwood was unable to supply more than a few examples of her concerns and, in the cases to which reference was made, was unable to draw attention to where the process undertaken by the Department had not been adequately undertaken in accordance with the terms of the directions made by the Appeal Tribunal.
  8. [30]
    Ms Underwood raised issues concerning not only the folder which contained the “information in issue” but also the folder containing the “documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision”.
  9. [31]
    Ms Underwood submitted that the Information Commissioner, “knowingly and deliberately omitted from their appeal book information to mislead both Ms Underwood and the Tribunal”.[21]
  10. [32]
    Ms Underwood referred to document 17 of 3 December 2015 pages 114 – 115 of the folder containing “documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision” and submitted that attachments to this preliminary review were omitted.[22]
  11. [33]
    These papers were attached to a letter which was sent to Ms Underwood, and which she had received. However, she submitted that they should be part of the record and this was a deficiency in the conduct of the Information Commissioner.[23]
  12. [34]
    Ms Underwood submitted that the deficiencies identified amounted to a non-compliance with the directions order made by the Tribunal.[24]
  13. [35]
    These documents had, of course, been provided to Ms Underwood. They are not in issue.
  14. [36]
    Having identified this asserted non-compliance, Ms Underwood, however, indicated that Ms Underwood was not asking that an order be made.[25] Ms Underwood ultimately indicated that she was not seeking to ventilate these issues rather that they went to “the integrity of the documents”.[26]
  15. [37]
    Ms Underwood asserted that the Department had “removed nine pages from their documentation without authorisation”.[27] Ms Underwood referred to pages 220 to 228 of the folder.
  16. [38]
    A review of the redacted version of the “information in issue” folder reveals that pages 220 through 228 were redacted for the reason “copyright”.
  17. [39]
    Ms Underwood submitted, “as far as I’m concerned, copyright isn’t a reason for redaction”.[28]
  18. [40]
    Of course, a dispute about whether or not a document should be made available is a matter, which will be dealt with at the hearing.  It is not a proper basis upon which Ms Underwood is able to seek the order envisaged by the application filed 5 July 2016.
  19. [41]
    As to this issue, Ms Underwood handed up a letter, which was sent by the Department to Ms Underwood on 7 December 2015. Ms Underwood submitted that the letter supported her argument that pages 220 to 228 “should not have been removed” as she put it.[29]
  20. [42]
    The letter refers to the pages having been removed and informs Ms Underwood the reason for removal by reference to the issue of copyright and section (4)(c) of the RTI Act.
  21. [43]
    Ms Underwood’s submission regarding the letter of 7 December 2015 is without merit. The reference to pages 220 to 228 does not illustrate any deficiency in the filing of the information by the Department.
  22. [44]
    Ultimately, Ms Underwood submitted that she wished to raise the issue “as an objection”, “as to the integrity of the documentation I’ve been provided with”.[30]  Ms Underwood indicated that she did not wish an order to be made about the particular documents.[31]
  23. [45]
    Ms Underwood submitted that the Department and the Information Commissioner had not complied with the Appeal Tribunal’s directions, by:
  1. Leaving out specific documents; and
  2. There being no index to the documents produced by the Department.[32]
  1. [46]
    Ms Underwood clarified that her assertion was “that there was absolutely no integrity to the documentation that was, in fact, produced”.[33]
  2. [47]
    Ms Underwood identified that there was no index before the Tribunal, there is no list of documents and no identification.[34]  Ms Underwood went on to submit that there was no way of the Tribunal obtaining indexes because indexes were included in the decision (of the Information Commissioner) “which you do not have, and the other one was included in the preliminary review, which you don’t have either”.[35]
  3. [48]
    Ms Underwood also submitted that the decision of the Information Commissioner had not been included in the folder containing “documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision”.[36]
  4. [49]
    Ms Underwood’s submissions in this respect are without merit. The decision of the Information Commissioner was attached to the application filed by Ms Underwood. It is before the Tribunal. Appendix 2 to the decision sets out “information in issue” and contains a list of pages and the associated decisions for those pages including, in some cases references to the relevant section of the RTI Act. Appendix 2 is read in conjunction with the decision, which sets out the reasoning of the Information Commissioner.  Moreover, a further document contained in the folder, which includes “documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision” sets out columns which contain:
  1. Page numbers;
  2. The assessment with respect to those page numbers; and
  3. Comments made.[37]
  1. [50]
    This matter was referred to in the submissions of the Department paragraph 10(g),[38]  which was served upon Ms Underwood.
  2. [51]
    Ms Underwood objected to the fact that it was necessary to consider a number of documents including: Appendix 2 to the decision, the folder containing redacted copies of the information in issue and documents such as those contained in pages 75 to 80 of the folder, which contained “documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision”.  Ms Underwood objected on the basis that this meant she had to “do this document and decision hopping gymnastics to find things”.[39]
  3. [52]
    The “information in issue” has been provided as required by the Directions made.
  4. [53]
    The objection taken by Ms Underwood is without merit. The documents plainly set out the decisions taken by the Information Commissioner including the reasons for the decisions and by reference to particular documents – which can be readily determined by reviewing the redacted ‘information in question’ and Appendix 2 to the decision.
  5. [54]
    Ms Underwood asserted that the Department failed to comply with the directions of the Appeal Tribunal because the documents did not address a request from the Tribunal as to the use of “smart redaction”.[40]
  6. [55]
    That criticism has no basis. No order was made by the Appeal Tribunal as to the use of “smart redaction”. In any event as is obvious from the papers provided by the Department, smart redaction was used to identify, within the documents, the basis of the exemption claimed.
  7. [56]
    Ms Underwood objected to the fact that the papers provided included blank pages and said that, as blank pages were included, it was easy “to remove these pages so there’s no integrity”.[41] In that context, Ms Underwood submitted that each document should contain a date, who it is to and from and the subject matter.[42]
  8. [57]
    Ms Underwood submitted that in those circumstances it was difficult for her to make submissions on a blank piece of paper.[43]
  9. [58]
    The submission made by Ms Underwood does not demonstrate any failure to comply by the Department or the Information Commissioner. The schedule of documents which is Appendix 2 to the decision, adequately sets out, with respect to each of the documents, the basis upon which the decision by the Information Commissioner was made.
  10. [59]
    In the cases where the entire page was withheld, such as pages 220-228, the exemption clearly applies to the entire document. It would not add anything to include 8 blank pages, each numbered.
  11. [60]
    In those circumstances, inserting page numbers on blank documents adds nothing to assist an applicant in making submissions. Nor does the addition of the date of the document.
  12. [61]
    This information is not necessary for the purpose of considering whether there is an error of law and so an applicant is not put to any disadvantage if such information is not included. The critical factor is for the Tribunal to have access to all of the documents and so be in a position to make a decision.
  13. [62]
    Ms Underwood submitted that the conduct of the Information Commissioner exhibited “the deliberate and intentioned misinterpretations of sections of the Act”.[44]
  14. [63]
    Ms Underwood submitted that an example of this deliberate intention of misinterpreting the Act related to the area of legal professional privilege and whether legal professional privilege applied with respect to the particular documents.[45] Whilst these matters may be relevant to the final hearing, they are not relevant to whether the Department and the Information Commissioner have complied with directions made by the Appeal Tribunal.
  15. [64]
    Ms Underwood referred to page 240 of the folder containing the “Documents in Issue”. Ms Underwood submitted that two blank boxes, which appeared on that page, did not contain any reference to the basis for exemption.[46]
  16. [65]
    As to that document, appendix 2 to the decision indicates that the decision was based upon “part CTP1 (categories 2(a) and (c)). It is clear from the document that the blank boxes contain the names of individuals.
  17. [66]
    Ms Underwood referred to document 231,[47] as suggesting that there were deficiencies in the information filed by the Department.
  18. [67]
    The document itself refers to “CTP1” and annexure 2 to the decision refers to “part CTP1 (category (2(a))”. Again, there is no merit in the submission made by Ms Underwood with respect to that document.
  19. [68]
    Because of the nature of the RTI review process, it is not possible to provide an applicant with copies of documents (or parts of documents) which are considered to be exempt by the Information Commissioner. For this reason, the Appeal Tribunal made the directions on 31 May 2016 which, as to:
  1. information in issue;
  2. the appeal documents containing the documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision; and
  3. submissions by the Department and the Information Commissioner,

required that there be two copies prepared, one unredacted and the second redacted so as to remove any reference to the information in issue that would disclose the information in issue or render the proceedings nugatory.

  1. [69]
    It goes without saying that this is the only method by which the RTI process can operate in a sensible way so as not to defeat the provisions of the legislation and the objects of the process.
  2. [70]
    It follows that the Department and the Information Commissioner must prepare the folders containing redactions, which are believed to be appropriate, based on the decision of the Information Commissioner.
  3. [71]
    Of course, the unredacted versions are made available to the Tribunal, which, with access to all the information, can decide whether there is an error of law, which is contained in the decision of the Information Commissioner.
  4. [72]
    The time at which the applicant must put the arguments concerning errors of law is at the hearing, and not at the time, the ‘information in issue’ is filed in the Tribunal.
  5. [73]
    Ms Underwood handed up a sheet of “Orders sought by Helen Underwood”.[48]
  6. [74]
    The orders sought were outside the ambit of the application and make little sense.
  7. [75]
    The sheet of paper refers to sections of the QCAT Act. As to the various sections to which reference is made, as will be obvious from these reasons, this Appeal Tribunal concludes:
  1. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner has caused disadvantage to the applicant.
  2. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner failed to comply with a Tribunal order or direction.
  3. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner contravened a decision of the Tribunal.
  4. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner or any person representing either of those parties made any statements to an official, which was false and misleading.
  5. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner nor any person representing either of those parties improperly influenced, or attempted to improper by influence any person in relation to the participation in the current proceedings.
  6. Neither the Department nor the Information Commissioner is in contempt of the Tribunal.

Conclusion

  1. [76]
    Because of the nature of the RTI review process, and the fact that it is not possible to reveal information to the applicant which would render the process nugatory, an applicant will always be in the position of not having access to the information in issue. It is the role of the Tribunal to review the information and decide whether in light of all the factors, there is an error of law evident in the decision of the Information Commissioner.
  2. [77]
    Ms Underwood questioned the integrity of the documents. None of the examples to which Ms Underwood has referred can justify or lead to the conclusion that the process lacks the necessary level of integrity. The provision of the redacted information in issue (containing the reasons for redaction) with appendix 2 to the decision, and the reasons for the decision, inform the applicant of the basis of the decisions by the Information Commissioner. This is sufficient to enable the applicant to make submissions as to whether there are errors of law evident in the decision of the Information Commissioner.
  3. [78]
    The directions made by the Appeal Tribunal describe the steps, which the Appeal Tribunal requires in advancing the matter, which include the provision of the information in issue, the appeal book and the submissions (in both redacted and non-redacted format).
  4. [79]
    The Department and the Information Commissioner have each complied with those requirements contained in the directions order made by the Appeal Tribunal.
  5. [80]
    In the circumstances, the application made by Ms Underwood on 5 July 2016 that the Department prepare, file and serve a copy of the information in issue is dismissed and the orders sought are refused.

Footnotes

[1]Submissions on behalf of the Applicant, filed 1 August 2016, page 5.

[2]Ibid, page 6.

[3]Ibid, pages 7-8.

[4]Ibid, page 9.

[5]Ibid, pages 10 – 20.

[6]Ibid, pages 21 – 24.

[7]Ibid, pages 25 – 26.

[8]Ibid, page 25.

[9]Ibid.

[10]Ibid, pages 25 – 28.

[11]Ibid, pages 29 – 32.

[12]Ibid, page 33.

[13]Ibid, pages 33 – 34.

[14]Ibid, page 40.

[15]Ibid, page 15.

[16]Ibid, page 19.

[17]Ibid, page 33.

[18]Submissions on behalf of Department of Housing and Public Works in response to application for miscellaneous matters filed 5 July 2016, filed 19 August 2016.

[19]Transcript of proceedings, hearing 30 August 2016, page 1- 6, line 37.

[20]For example Ibid page 1-4, lines 28-29, lines 34-37.

[21]Ibid, page 1-10, lines 26-28.

[22]Ibid, page 1-10, lines 28-31.

[23]Ibid, page 1-12, lines 38-40.

[24]Ibid, page 1-13, lines 35-41.

[25]Ibid, page 1-14, line 4.

[26]Ibid, page 1-18, line 27.

[27]Ibid, page 1-14, lines 11-12.

[28]Ibid, page 1-15, lines 7-8.

[29]Ibid, page 1-16 and 1-17.

[30]Ibid, page 1-17, lines 26, 31, 32.

[31]Ibid, page 1-17, line 36.

[32]Ibid, page 1-18, lines 41-44.

[33]Ibid, page 1-19, lines 31, 32.

[34]Ibid, page 1-20, lines 1-3.

[35]Ibid, page 1-20, lines 24-26.

[36]Ibid, page 1-11, lines 13-15.

[37]Documents relied upon by the Information Commissioner in making the decision (redacted), pages 75-80.

[38]Submissions on behalf of the Department of Housing and Public Works in response to application for miscellaneous matters: 5 July 2016, page 5, paragraph 10(g).

[39]Transcript of proceedings, hearing 30 August 2016, page 1-22, lines 14-19.

[40]Ibid, page 1-36, lines 12, 13.

[41]Ibid, page 1-36, lines 33, 34.

[42]Ibid, page 1-37, line 8.

[43]Ibid, page 1-38, lines 7, 8.

[44]Ibid, page 1-53, lines 5-6.

[45]Ibid, page 1-53, lines 10-12.

[46]Ibid, page 1-55 lines 30-31.

[47]Ibid, page 1-57, lines 31-32.

[48]See [21] – [22] above.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Underwood v Department of Housing and Public Works & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Underwood v Department of Housing and Public Works

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 156

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Thomas P

  • Date:

    01 Nov 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.