Stassen v NSW Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 144

CITATION: Stassen v NSW Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 144

DIVISION: General Division

Applicant: Mary Stassen PARTIES: Respondent: NSW Department of Education and Training

FILE NUMBER: 083288

HEARING DATES: 23 December 2008

DATE OF DECISION: 16 June 2009

BEFORE: Wilson R - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information Act 1989, Access to documents containing information as to personal affairs and information provided in confidence, Schedule 1 clauses 6 and 13

LEGISLATION CITED : Freedom of Information Act 1989

CASES CITED: CEO, State Rail Authority v Woods [2003] NSWADTAP 25

Applicant: In Person REPRESENTATION: Respondent: Ms S Bilbe-Taylor

ORDERS: 1. The decision under review is set aside. 2. In substitution for that decision, the Tribunal determines that the document in question (exhibit R3) does not contain exempt material and access is granted to the applicant without deletion.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 These proceedings have been commenced in the Tribunal seeking review of a decision by the Respondent refusing access following an initial application pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1989. By the time of hearing only parts of a single document, consisting of two folios were in issue. This document is marked exhibit R3, a copy of which has not yet been provided to the applicant.

2 However, the applicant has been granted access to a partially edited copy of this document which appears as tab E to exhibit R2. From this edited copy the applicant has discerned that the parts of the document that have been edited out consist of two email communications from one Leanne Mead to a Mr. Peter Marsh, one at 09:20 am on 16.02.07 and the other at 11:48 am that same day. This much is clear from the edited copy that the applicant was given. It is also clear from that document that Mr. Marsh has replied to the earlier communication from Ms Mead, and that this reply demonstrates that Ms Mead had written to Mr Marsh concerning issues that had arisen in Ms Mead's workplace. Mr. Marsh's reply also reveals that these issues, as Ms Mead perceived them, concerned the degree of assistance provided, interference in her duties and a sense of intimidation. In his reply, Mr. Marsh stated that he would address these issues by discussing them with relevant staff members with the intent of negotiating a "workable way forward". It is common ground that an investigation was later conducted by a Ms Helen Colbey. To this extent then, the Tribunal need not be circumspect in these reasons for decision.