Recent Cases: Victoria

Kotsopoulos v Western Health [2026] VCAT 422 (5 June 2026)

Facts

Tony Kotsopoulous (“applicant”) sought access under the FOI Act to his son's medical records relating to an Emergency Department visit at Sunshine Hospital on 25 November 2024.  Western Health (“respondent”) released most records but heavily redacted a "Social Work Psychosocial Assessment", relying on s 33.  The applicant sought review by the Victorian Information Commissioner (“Commissioner”), who upheld the refusal.  The applicant then applied to Victorian Administrative Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) under s 50(1)(b).  On review, the hospital claimed the disputed document was outside the scope of the original request, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Held 

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the review application under s 50(1)(b) of the FOI Act, refusing the respondent’s application for summary dismissal of the proceeding under s 75 of the VCAT Act.

Reasoning

Information Commissioner review decision: s 50 (1)(b)

The Tribunal held that disputes about the scope of an FOI request are not jurisdictional questions.  The Tribunal held that once there is a valid FOI request, a refusal of access to documents and an Information Commissioner review decision, then the Tribunal has jurisdiction.  Whether a document is within the scope is a merits issue, not a jurisdictional barrier.

Construction of requests: s 17

The Tribunal confirmed that an FOI request is to be read as a whole, not by isolating parts.  The respondent had focussed on the opening paragraph to the request which referred to the Emergency Department visit, but the Tribunal considered the request was broader  as it sought “any additional relevant documentation related to [the son’s] care”.

Summary dismissal: s 75 VCAT Act

The Tribunal emphasised the high threshold that must be met before a proceeding is summarily dismissed.  This will only occur where the matter is clearly hopeless or bound to fail.  As the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the document was obviously outside the scope of the request, summary dismissal was inappropriate.