Recent Cases: Victoria
Wright v Monash Health [2025] VCAT 117
Facts
Mr. Steven Wright (“complainant”) had transferred from working at one site of Monash Health (“respondent”) to another. He contacted the respondent about belongings he had left at his original work site. His belongings were found in a filing cabinet shared by the respondent and other staff members and included a volume of documents comprising the complainant’s personal texts. Following disciplinary action, the complainant was dismissed. He complained to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (“Commissioner”) that the respondent had breached several IPPs in collecting and using his personal information in the documents. The Commissioner declined to hear the complaint and referred the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”). The respondent applied to have the proceeding struck out or summarily dismissed under s 75 of the VCAT Act. In determining the s 75 application, the Tribunal made findings on some breach claims.
Held
The claimed IPP breaches were not substantiated. The proceeding was dismissed under s 75 of the VCAT Act.
Reasoning
Collection of personal information: IPP 1
The circumstances did not amount to the respondent “collecting” the complainant’s personal information for the purpose of IPP 1. Inadvertent discovery by the respondent’s staff member of the document in a shared workplace filing cabinet was not “collection”.
Use and disclosure: IPP 2.1
If the complainant’s claim that his personal information had been collected had been made out, the Tribunal was satisfied that the use would have been necessary for the respondent’s functions and activities involved in initiating disciplinary proceedings. Information concerning the applicant’s return to work was not personal information. The respondent was required and authorised under law to disclose the information to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency due to its mandatory reporting obligations.
Department of Treasury and Finance v Davis [2025] VCAT 145
Facts
The Department of Treasury and Finance (“Department”) applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for a review of the Acting Victorian Information Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) decision to release a ten paragraph Ministerial Brief concerning approval of the 2026 Commonwealth Games Organising Committee Constitution (“Brief”) to the Honourable Mr David Davis MP (“respondent”). The Commissioner’s decision differed to the Department’s original decision as it released an additional paragraph of the Brief as it was not satisfied that it was exempt under s 34(1)(b). The Tribunal considered a Brief that had been partially released to the respondent with exemptions claimed under ss 28(1)(d), 30(1), 32, 33(1) and 34(4). The respondent sought access to the Brief excluding personal affairs information.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s decision, finding parts of the document were exempt under ss 28(1)(d), 32 and 34(4).
Reasoning
Deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet: s 28(1)(d)
In relation to s 28(1)(d), the Tribunal considered whether the exception in s 28(3) would apply and confirmed that based on evidence and the document, the information was not statistical, technical or scientific material so the exception did not apply. The Tribunal accepted that disclosure would reveal Cabinet sub-committee deliberations and decisions. While the outcome of the Cabinet decision had later become known, that did not retrospectively lift the exemption, unless the outcome was a document by which the Cabinet decision was officially published.
Documents relating to trade secrets: s 34(4)
The material claimed as exempt was about the commercial risk positions associated with planning funding and delivery of the Games between the state of Victoria and other bodies. It identified risks allocated to the State of Victoria which were not known outside the bodies involved. While there was some public information, the specific information was not public and neither the contract or constitution involved in the process were public and both were kept confidential. The estimate of how many people had read the confidential document still equated to the document being held in confidence, as the persons who had read the document appeared to have done so within confidential employment environments. The estimated number of people who had read the document did not equate with the document no longer being held in confidence. The Tribunal also accepted that the information had not been disclosed, and wide publication of the material would cause unreasonable disadvantage to Victoria, in relation to ongoing negotiations for future major sporting events.
Public interest override: s 50(4)
The respondent submitted that there was a high public interest in the cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games, as well as damage done to Victoria, its reputation and its economy. He contended that examining the process concerning the games to prevent similar events happening again was within the public interest. The Tribunal’s view was that while there was a strong, public interest, the document would not provide the benefits claimed as being in the public interest. Independent examination had occurred, there was no claim that disclosure would reveal some illegality, impropriety, sharp practice or wrong-doing; it would not allow any person to understand what went wrong with the Commonwealth games process. There was no basis for the Tribunal to conclude that the public interest would require disclosure.