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

Z'Quessah Bosch v Office of the Information Commissioner & Anor[2016] QCATA 191

Z'Quessah Bosch v Office of the Information Commissioner & Anor[2016] QCATA 191

CITATION:

Z’Quessah Bosch v Office of the Information Commissioner & Anor [2016] QCATA 191

PARTIES:

Z’Quessah Bosch

(Applicant)

v

Office of the Information Commissioner

(First Respondent)

Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service

(Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

APL395-15

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

HEARING DATE:

28 September 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – GENERALLY where the applicant sought documents relating to hospital notes and laboratory reports from the second respondent – where most of these documents were released by the Information Commissioner – where the applicant sought to appeal the decision of the Information Commissioner under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) – where the appeal must be on a question of law only – whether the Information Commissioner erred in law in deciding not to release all the documents

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ss 12, 40, 132(2)

Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) ss 27, 28, 29, 30

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) ss 14, 47, 48, 49, 124, schedule 3, schedule 4

Ferrier and Queensland Police Service (1996) 3 QAR 350

Schirmer v Queensland Health & Anor [2005] QSC 353

SP [2010] QCAT 361

SQD and Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 2 September 2010)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:

Ms Bosch appearing on behalf of herself

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Lake, T. appearing on behalf of the Office of the Information Commissioner

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Burns, F. appearing as legal counsel for the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Ms Bosch applied to the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (“Health Service”) under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (“IP Act”) for access to inpatient hospital notes, outpatient notes, community health notes and laboratory reports at the Sunshine Coast hospital from 2011 to 1 October 2014.
  2. [2]
    The Health Service located 1054 pages relevant to the access application. All pages were released except for 23 full pages and 40 part pages.
  3. [3]
    Ms Bosch applied to the Office of Information Commissioner (“OIC”) for external review of the Health Service decision to refuse access to all of the requested information.
  4. [4]
    Some additional information was released to Ms Bosch with the agreement of the Health Service. The information, which was not released, comprises 23 full pages and 33 part pages. The information not released relates to a Justices Examination Order (“JEO”) regarding Ms Bosch and particular information provided by other individuals to the Health Service for the purpose of Ms Bosch’s treatment and assessment.
  5. [5]
    The OIC decided that access to the remaining information would be refused on the grounds that disclosure of:
  1. 23 full pages and 14 part pages could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment, and accordingly that information is exempt information; and
  2. 29 part pages would on balance be contrary to the public interest.
  1. [6]
    The OIC varied the Health Service decision and found that:
  1. Access to the JEO information can be refused on the ground that it comprises exempt information because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment; and
  2. Access to the health care information can be refused on the ground that its disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.[1]

The appeal

  1. [7]
    Ms Bosch has appealed to the Appeal Tribunal pursuant to section 132 of the IP Act.[2]
  2. [8]
    The appeal may only be on a question of law.[3]

Right to access

  1. [9]
    An individual has a right to be given access under the IP Act to documents of an agency or a Minister to the extent that the documents contain the individual’s personal information.[4]
  2. [10]
    There are grounds upon which an individual may be refused access to a document of an agency or Minister. Access may be refused in the same way and to the same extent as access may be refused under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (“RTI Act”)[5] were the document to be the subject of an access application under the RTI Act.

The grounds of appeal

  1. [11]
    According to the application filed by Ms Bosch, the grounds for appeal are:
    1. Rebuttal of a highly inappropriate law, which was highly discriminatory in the first instance to apply to what was only a civil matter.
    2. Due to being discriminated due to med records, in relation to LGE and JEO and ITO every time since when needing hospital med assistance for physical reasons only. Single minded inept comprehension of staff due to farce of LGE records.
  2. [12]
    The orders sought are, full disclosure of:
    1. JEO;
    2. ITO Oct 2012;
    3. Med Rec NOV 2012 to 2013;
    4. An apology; and
    5. Compensation for pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, discrimination (section 51 Medical).
  3. [13]
    Numerous handwritten documents, which the Tribunal accepted to be submissions, were submitted by Ms Bosch.
  4. [14]
    Many of the submissions describe the way in which Ms Bosch feels that the Health Service was incompetent in the treatment, which she received, particularly concerning the JEO process.
  5. [15]
    In submissions received on 23 June 2016, Ms Bosch recorded:

“Section 2, by not releasing ALL pages, compromises my right to full unfettered unhinded [sic] justice, in court of law, for the sub humane mishandling of misinformed, convoluted, fabricated information – given by species known as humans, on balance then corrected for public interest.

OIC plus public hospital application (review) do show generic – use of paragraphs, for many years, outdated. Misuse of actual factual information – their own uninvolved opinions, as they are, or persons – one size does not fit all. Nil careful consideration – general overview – eg – distressed not ever mentioned by me. Generic – personal opinions – not facts.”

  1. [16]
    In another statutory declaration (in the form of a submission) on 23 June 2016, Ms Bosch said:

“Most information given to support of JEO was manipulated, to, and for a required issue of it. There was no violence by me, no abuse by me …”

  1. [17]
    Other documents delivered on the same date referred to a consistently flawed JEO process, which diminished the integrity of the process. Reference is also made to corrupt information.
  2. [18]
    In a submission filed on 19 February 2016, Ms Bosch sought an oral hearing due to “severe negligent, incompetent, misleading, falsified testimony of IFYS – compiled information (tenants of IFYS), information of (quid pro quo) (in nature) cult heal, misleading, false, NBH negligence (in notes and conduct, Nambour). MH, ignorance negligence misleading and similar.”
  3. [19]
    In a further submission on 18 February 2016, Ms Bosch said “OIC has an absolute obligation to be thorough. Go through every detail with a fine tooth comb… public servants do not do a thorough job. Too many are public servants answer to the people, not, the other way around. Doing good according to law is admirable and just. Using the law to ignore justice is as good as treason (to the people) or persons.”
  4. [20]
    In declarations (submissions) filed on 11 December 2015, reference is made to the conduct of tenants in a unit complex.
  5. [21]
    In a submission received on 16 December 2015, Ms Bosch referred to “mess ups” by public servants and the costs she has incurred as a result, stating:
    1. “As an Indigenous Australian, I have been jolted, shoved, tossed neglected by the untruthfulness of the informants to secure the JEO hence the reason for QCAT.”
    2. “As others who have been up to speed from November 2012 until now have openly discussed with others and myself a full (enquiry) into the mental health system (format) staff the information they procure then notation on the whole gamut encompassing clients, notes, selectivity and similar, shows extreme misuse of power. I’m not the only one. It absolutely needs thorough overhaul, with the factual truth, I shall show I was (hung and fore quartered) (so to speak). No one checked upon facts. No one was thorough. No one blinked an eye. Perhaps it was political NBH has been there before. (Cult Heal) need regular funding. Either way, the only issue is my JEO paperwork. Even persons who have committed horrendous crimes, have a fair and just trial. They have all information open and clear. I have not even had a parking ticket. The mistreatment of me has been and is an absolute disgrace.”
  6. [22]
    The submissions by the Health Service[6] were that, in her submission, the applicant:
    1. Made references to information which the Health Service considered irrelevant in the current proceedings; and
    2. By in large provided commentary on the content of the documentation in her medical record.
  7. [23]
    The Health Service submitted that the applicant had not made out grounds in her submission for the release of the documents in question.
  8. [24]
    At the hearing on 26 September 2016, the applicant clarified the errors, which she asserted had been made in the decision of 14 August 2015.
  9. [25]
    The applicant submitted:
    1. The other parties were using law to stand behind justice.
    2. From the start of the JEO process nothing was done correctly – fabricated information was given. Most of the information was misleading and irrelevant.
    3. During the whole of the RTI process, no person ever asked any questions of the applicant and the OIC ignored relevant information and did not question the applicant.
    4. The applicant’s need to obtain the information is greater than the interest of others identified. If the others were truthful then they should not fear disclosure of the information.
    5. The applicant requires greater protection and the balance should be in the applicants favour. Protecting others is simply protecting fabricated evidence.
    6. The applicant does not want more stolen from her. She is the innocent party and so requires greater protection.
    7. The law is 2001 law and it is now 2016. The law is outdated. It should not be “one size fits all”. One size does not fit all. For the most part the OIC does not disclose information. This is antiquated, outdated and circumstances of individuals are different.
    8. Every person is different. The applicant has done no wrong but has to right a wrong which has been done to her legally. Everyone is entitled to this.
    9. The applicant has done nothing wrong and also always operates legally and so the OIC decision should favour the innocent.
    10. It’s about finding justice for an indigenous person – it’s all about legal justice. Sometimes paperwork has to be given freely to who can do far better with it legally than can others. Is a matter of taking care of the legal wrong. The others don’t need it but the applicant can do something legally to right wrongs and then can move on as can the applicant’s supporters. To do justice the applicant requires the paperwork.
    11. The applicant’s interests are superior to everyone else concerned in this country. The applicant’s interests are higher than those who are hiding behind the law to protect them.
    12. The case must focus on the applicant’s interest. The case would not have happened except for the applicant. The paperwork must be provided to enable the applicant to right an injustice.

Discussion

  1. [26]
    The appeal is restricted to questions of law.
  2. [27]
    An agency may refuse access to documents to the extent that the documents comprise exempt information.[7]
  3. [28]
    Schedule 3 of the RTI Act sets out information which is exempt information on the basis that the disclosure, on balance, would be contrary to public interest.[8]
  4. [29]
    Section 10(1)(i) of the RTI Act also provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would reasonably be expected to prejudice a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or the environment.[9] The following requirements must be met in order for the exemption to apply:[10]
    1. There is an identifiable system or procedure; and
    2. It is a system or procedure for the protection of persons, property or environment; and
    3. Disclosing the information in issue could reasonably be expected to prejudice that system or procedure.

Identifiable System or Procedure

  1. [30]
    Under the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) (“Mental Health Act”), a person may apply to a Magistrate or Justice of the Peace for a JEO for another person.[11] The Magistrate or Justice of the Peace may then issue the JEO if they reasonably believe the relevant person has a mental illness and should be examined.[12] Once the JEO is issued, the examination can take place.[13]
  2. [31]
    In light of the proscribed legislative steps outlined in the Mental Health Act, the JEO procedure is clearly a system or procedure for the purposes of schedule 3 and section 10(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
  3. [32]
    These considerations were applied by OIC in the decision. They are correct applications of the way in which the system operates legislatively and do not contain error.
  4. [33]
    Consequentially, there was no error of law in the OIC’s finding in this respect.

System or Procedure for the Protection of Persons, Property or Environment

  1. [34]
    In Schirmer v Queensland Health & Anor,[14] the applicant was subjected to a JEO on the grounds of his mental deterioration and admitted to a mental health unit with assistance by the police. Similarly in SP,[15] an intellectually disabled woman was referred to a mental health unit for her ongoing care and protection via a JEO after her mother and primary carer was placed into a residential care facility.
  2. [35]
    These are examples, which illustrate the fact that the JEO process is an important mechanism by which persons in need of appropriate mental health care may be removed from the community for the purposes of assessment and treatment, thereby minimising the potential for harm to themselves and others.
  3. [36]
    The JEO process is a procedure for the protection of relevant persons in need of mental health care. The OIC make this finding in the decision.[16] The approach taken by the OIC is correct.
  4. [37]
    There is no error of law in this aspect of the decision.

Disclosure Reasonably Expected to Prejudice the System or Procedure

  1. [38]
    The application for a JEO is made on the basis that the information supplied by the applicant is used for the limited purpose of ensuring the administration of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld).[17]
  2. [39]
    The disclosure of information about a JEO might reasonably be expected to render future JEO applicants reluctant to supply information, which could impact the quality of information needed for a proper JEO assessment.
  3. [40]
    The third requirement is satisfied.
  4. [41]
    The OIC correctly reached this conclusion in the decision.[18]
  5. [42]
    The JEO information falls within schedule 3. This is the conclusion reached by the Information Commissioner.[19]

Healthcare Information

  1. [43]
    As to the health care information, sections 47(3)(b) and 49 RTI Act provide that access to information may be refused where disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
  2. [44]
    The RTI Act prescribes the steps to be taken by a decision-maker in deciding the public interest:[20]
    1. Identify any irrelevant factors and disregard them;
    2. Identify relevant public interest factors favouring disclosure and nondisclosure;
    3. Balance the relevant factors favouring disclosure and nondisclosure; and
    4. Decide whether disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to public interest.
  3. [45]
    The OIC decision correctly identifies these factors.[21]

Irrelevant Factors

  1. [46]
    The OIC found no irrelevant factors arose in the circumstances.[22]

Relevant Public Interest Factors

  1. [47]
    Schedule 4 of the RTI Act identifies many factors that may be relevant to deciding the balance of the public interest. Those factors include:
    1. Promoting open discussion of public affairs and enhancing the Government’s accountability;[23]
    2. Advancing the fair treatment of individuals and other entities in accordance with the law in their dealings with agencies;[24] and
    3. Revealing the reasons for a government decision and any background or contextual information that informed the decision.[25]
  2. [48]
    Schedule 4 also refers to factors favouring nondisclosure, including:
    1. Where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy;[26]
    2. Where disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause a public interest harm if it would disclose personal information of a person, whether living or dead;[27] and
    3. Where disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice an agency’s ability to obtain confidential information.[28]
  3. [49]
    On these matters, Ms Bosch makes reference to the following in her submissions:
    1. The applicant is an innocent party.
    2. The applicant has done no wrong but has to right a wrong which has been done to her legally. The OIC decision should favour the innocent.
    3. The law is 2001 law and it is now 2016. The law is outdated. It should not be “one size fits all”.
    4. It’s about finding justice for an indigenous person – it’s all about legal justice. It is a matter of taking care of the legal wrong.
  4. [50]
    These are matters peculiar to Ms Bosch’s circumstances. These submissions make clear Ms Bosch’s motivations for seeking access to the remaining documents in question.
  5. [51]
    However, such matters do not fall under the above public interest factors in schedule 4 of the RTI Act. It was not open to the OIC to consider these matters raised by Ms Bosch in the making of the initial decision. Likewise, these matters are not relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration in the present application.
  6. [52]
    Ms Bosch also submits:
    1. From the start of the JEO process nothing was done correctly – fabricated information was given. Most of the information was misleading and irrelevant.
    2. During the whole of the RTI process, no person ever asked any questions of the applicant and the OIC ignored relevant information and did not question the applicant.
  7. [53]
    These submissions address relevant factors favouring disclosure under schedule 4 part 2 of the RTI Act. For example, Ms Bosch’s allegation that the JEO process was not followed or performed correctly might be reasonably expected to reveal negligent or improper conduct by the Health Service.[29]
  8. [54]
    The OIC decision identifies and summarises Ms Bosch’s submissions on her “great concerns about the JEO process, which has caused her significant distress”.[30] The OIC also discussed the appropriateness of these submissions to the considerations favouring disclosure under the RTI Act.[31]
  9. [55]
    Ms Bosch’s submission that no questions were asked of her in the RTI process touches on whether the disclosure might assist enquiry into efficiencies in the conduct and administration of the OIC.[32] This submission was first put forward by Ms Bosch at the hearing on 26 September 2016. This submission is not relevant to any consideration under the RTI Act, as the relevant factor relates to the “conduct and administration of an agency”,[33] which refers to the agency which held the documents.
  10. [56]
    The information in issue comprises the applicant’s personal information as well as the personal information of other individuals.
  11. [57]
    Healthcare agencies rely on information provided by third parties to assist patient care and treatment. Those third parties may be deterred from providing this type of information in the future if they are aware that it could be disclosed to the patient. This could prejudice the ability of healthcare providers to effectively treat patients by reducing the likelihood that they have access to all the relevant information about the patient.
  12. [58]
    These are also factors in the current case that are relevant to a decision under the RTI Act. OIC identified these factors for consideration in the decision.[34]

Balancing the Relevant Factors

  1. [59]
    The information already disclosed to Ms Bosch provides her with a comprehensive understanding of the actions taken by the Health Service and satisfies public interest factors. For this reason, the disclosure of the remaining information is unlikely to advance the identified public interest factors to any substantial degree.
  2. [60]
    As to accountability, the majority of the information in question relates to Ms Bosch and comprises her ‘personal information’ within the meaning of section 12 of the IP Act. The RTI Act provides that it is generally in the public interest for individuals to be able to access their personal information held by government agencies.[35]
  3. [61]
    The fact that the information already supplied to Ms Bosch includes a very substantial portion of the material in the possession of the Health Service is also relevant to the question of enhancing accountability and transparency as well as revealing the reasons for a Government decision.[36] This public interest factor has been catered for substantially as a result of the material already made available to Ms Bosch.
  4. [62]
    The disclosure of the health care information would also be a significant intrusion into the privacy of the individuals who provided the information. The extent of public interest harm that could be anticipated from disclosure is significant when considering the future operation of healthcare agencies that rely on such information.
  5. [63]
    These are the factors relevant to this decision that must be balanced in deciding whether the disclosure of the information is in the public interest under section 49(3) RTI Act.
  6. [64]
    Ms Bosch also raises other factors favouring disclosure as relating to the JEO process, such as whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to allow or assist enquiry into efficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official,[37] whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that an agency official has engaged in negligent or improper conduct,[38] and whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal that the information was incorrectly misleading.[39]
  7. [65]
    The OIC decision takes account of the requirement to consider the context of Ms Bosch’s concerns.[40] The decision identifies all of the factors and considers them where they were relevant.

Whether Disclosure Contrary to Public Interest

  1. [66]
    The assessment of whether disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to public interest for the purposes of section 49(3) RTI Act involves attribution of weight to the relevant factors identified in the preceding steps of the analysis.
  2. [67]
    On the question of weight, Ms Bosch makes the following submissions:
    1. The applicant’s need to obtain information is greater than the interest of others identified because she is the innocent party;
    2. The applicant requires greater protection and the balance should be in her favour to reflect this;
    3. The applicant’s interests are superior and are higher than those who are hiding behind the law;
    4. The case must focus on the applicant’s interests as the case would not have happened except for the applicant. The documents must be provided to enable the applicant to right an injustice.
  3. [68]
    The matters raised by Ms Bosch, while relevant to her circumstances, are not central to the public interest balance provided for in the RTI Act.
  4. [69]
    The correct approach is that the degree of importance or weight given to a relevant public interest factor will depend on the effect that disclosing the information would have on the public interest consideration addressed by the factor.This is reflected in the decision.
  5. [70]
    The disclosure of the health care information would be a significant intrusion into the privacy of some individuals and the extent of public interest harm that could be anticipated from disclosure is significant. This is a factor favouring non-disclosure that has significant weight.
  6. [71]
    The implications that arise from disclosure, being the prejudice of future flows of confidential information, lead to the conclusion that the public interest harm arising from disclosure of the health care information would be significant. The result is that this factor favouring non-disclosure also has significant weight.
  7. [72]
    The OIC appropriately considers each of the factors previously analysed, assessing the weight to be given to each of these factors and then concludes that the factors favouring non-disclosure outweigh the factors favouring disclosure.
  8. [73]
    The approach of balancing the weight of the factors against one another in coming to a decision is the correct approach and does not reveal any error of law in the decision.

Conclusion

  1. [74]
    The orders which can be made are limited by the terms of the legislation. The orders concern the disclosure of information. The Tribunal has no power to order the provision of an apology or Compensation for pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, discrimination (section 51 Medical), as is sought by the Applicant.
  2. [75]
    The applicant’s concerns which led to the request being made are clearly genuinely and firmly held.
  3. [76]
    In particular, the applicant has great concerns regarding the JEO process. Ms Bosch believes that some of the information upon which the JEO application was based was not provided in an honest way and so seeks access to the information to, as the applicant puts it, address the injustice, which she has suffered.
  4. [77]
    Acknowledging the genuine concern, which the applicant clearly has, it is however, the case that the access to private information under the IP Act is governed by the provisions of the RTI Act. These provisions are incorporated into the access process under both the IP Act and the RTI Act. From a legal standpoint, it is necessary to balance the various factors that favour disclosure and those, which favour non-disclosure.
  5. [78]
    An appeal from a decision of the Office the Information Commissioner is an appeal on a question of law only,[41] and so it is necessary for an applicant to establish an error of law.
  6. [79]
    In this case, there is no error of law contained in the decision of the Office of the Information Commissioner and so the appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraph 47.

[2] Application for Leave to Appeal filed by Ms Bosch, 23 September 2015.

[3] Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 132(2).

[4] Ibid, s 40.

[5] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) as amended.

[6] Submissions on behalf of the second respondent, filed 15 March 2016 at [3].

[7] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) s 48(2).

[8] Ibid, ss 47(3)(a), 48.

[9] Ibid, sch 3; s 10(1)(i).

[10] Ferrier and Queensland Police Service (1996) 3 QAR 350 at [27]-[36].

[11] Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) s 27.

[12] Ibid s 28.

[13] Ibid ss 29 and 30.

[14] [2005] QSC 353.

[15] [2010] QCAT 361.

[16] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraph 20.

[17] SQD and Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Unreported, Queensland Information Commissioner, 2 September 2010) at [17].

[18] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraph 25.

[19] Ibid, paragraph 26.

[20] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) s 49(3).

[21] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraph 28.

[22] Ibid, paragraph 29.

[23] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) sch 4, part 2, item 1.

[24] Ibid, sch 4, part 2, item 10.

[25] Ibid, item 11.

[26] Ibid, sch 4, part 3, item 3.

[27] Ibid, sch 4, part 4, item 6(1).

[28] Ibid, sch 4, part 3, item 16.

[29] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) sch 4, part 2, item 6.

[30] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraph 24.

[31] Ibid, paragraph 41.

[32] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), sch 4, part 2, item 5.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraphs 30 – 32.

[35] Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) sch 4, part 2, item 7.

[36] Ibid, sch 4, part, items 1 and 11.

[37] Ibid, sch 4, part 2, item 5.

[38] Ibid, item 6.

[39] Ibid, item 12(a).

[40] Decision of the Information Commissioner dated 14 August 2015, paragraphs 24, 41.

[41] Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 132(2).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Z'Quessah Bosch v Office of the Information Commissioner & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Z'Quessah Bosch v Office of the Information Commissioner & Anor

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCATA 191

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Justice DG Thomas

  • Date:

    09 Dec 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.