Recent Cases: Victoria
Colbert v Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action [2026] VCAT 651 (13 August 2026)
Facts
Mr Martin Colbert (“applicant”) applied to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (“Department”) for access to information about 3 applications for Authority to Control Wildlife by the Department, which included personal information of Mr Alan Bennett (“Bennett”). The Department was given a signed statement from Bennett saying the applicant was acting on his behalf in the matter. As no decision was made within the statutory timeframe, the applicant applied for review by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) of a decision taken to be made by the Department.
After subsequently making a decision and producing documents relevant to the request, the applicant made an application for the review to extend to the decision made. The Department sought an order for the applicant’s review application to be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the basis the applicant did not make the request personally, but as an agent for Bennett or alternatively, the West Wimmera Action Group (“WWAG”), of which he was a member. That is, that the correct applicant was Bennett
Held
The Tribunal held that the applicant made the request personally and was therefore entitled to apply to the Tribunal. It refused to summarily dismiss the proceeding under section 75 of the VCAT Act.
Reasoning
Requests for access: s 17
The Tribunal found that the applicant had made the request personally, despite his close involvement with WWAG and Bennett. The key factor was the applicant having made the request in his own name and in the first person, using his personal contact details (despite correspondence inconsistently using WWAG letterhead and contact details as well). The payment information used the applicant’s name only and made no mention of Bennett or WWAG. In its dealings, the Department had consistently treated him as the applicant and addressed its correspondence and final decision to him personally.
Although the applicant was authorised by WWAG and later stated that he was acting on behalf of Bennet, the Tribunal found that this did not make him merely an agent. He was fount to have had his own interest in obtaining the information and intended to share it with WWAG, Bennett and others.
The Tribunal also noted that there no evidence the Department relied on the alleged agency relationship when making its decision. Accordingly, the applicant’s status as applicant had not been displaced.
The Tribunal’s view was being authorised to act for another person or organisation does not necessarily mean that a person is only acting as an agent. In situations where it is necessary to determine the identity of the applicant, the Tribunal will consider the actual conduct, wording of the FOI request and dealings with the agency.
Davis v Department of Transport and Planning [2026] VCAT 740 (8 September 2026)
Facts
On 17 July 2024, the Honourable Mr David Davis MP (“applicant”) applied to the Department of Transport and Planning (“Department”) for access to briefs created from 1 December 2022 for then-Minister Jacinta Allan and the alleged corruption within the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (“CFMEU”).
As the Department did not make a decision within the statutory timeframe, the applicant applied to the Victorian Administrative Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for review. The Department subsequently granted the applicant partial access to 2 documents, with exemptions made under ss 33(1).
At the hearing, the Department relied upon the documents to substantiate the exemption claim, making submissions at the hearing that s 33(2A) should also apply to the documents.
Held
The Tribunal held that parts of the disputed documents were to be released to the applicant, and specified redactions to be made under ss 33.
Reasoning
Personal affairs information: s 33
The documents contained personal affairs information of third parties, including names, employer details, position titles, text messages and health information and had claimed s 33 broadly.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Department had fully established the exemptions under ss 33 in respect of the claim made on either document. Document 1 comprised complaints about public spending, labour hire processes and industrial relations, while Document 2 was an email chain from October 2022 to January 2023. The Department provided no evidence to support why it was unreasonable for the entirety of pages to be withheld under s 33, such as the author opposed disclosure or that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
Although the Tribunal was not satisfied that disclosure would pose a physical danger to individuals, it accepted that disclosure could reasonably cause distress to employees or former employees of specific companies who had complained about the CFMEU, particularly given the CFMEU’s past reputation. The Tribunal therefore considered it unreasonable to disclose the identities of those individuals and ordered that the documents be released with the relevant identifying information redacted.