Your search for
Section 31
returned 30 results.
-
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy
Mr Robert Hogan has an interest in matters related to the University of Tasmania. On 4 December 2024, he made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the former Minister for innovation, Science and the Digital Economy seeking information relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024.
On 29 January 2026 Mr Hogan received a decision on his assessed disclosure application. The Minister’s delegate identified 103 documents and relied on ss27, 31 and 39 to not release some of this information.
Mr Hogan sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman, requesting a review of the use of these exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined the:
- use of ss27 and 31 should be varied;
- use of s39 should be affirmed; and
- search for information was sufficient.
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy (PDF, 227.8 KB)
-
Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet
On 24 September 2024, Mr Adam Holmes submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department). He requested information related to legal fees charged to the government.
On 27 September 2024, the Department issued its original decision to Mr Holmes. The Department relied on s22(4) of the Act to neither confirm nor deny the existence of relevant information.
Mr Holmes sought internal review, and the Department altered its position. It continued to rely on s22(4) in relation to part of the requested information, but it released other information in part. Exemptions were also claimed under ss31 and 36.
Mr Holmes sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
- exemptions under s39 apply.
Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 348.6 KB)
-
J and TasTAFE
On 26 November 2024, J made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to TasTAFE. They requested information related to the processes and procedures followed in terminating their employment at TasTAFE.
On 16 April 2025, TasTAFE’s then Chief Executive Officer issued a decision to J, finding the relevant information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31 of the Act.
J was not satisfied by this decision and sought external review by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 should be varied;
- exemptions pursuant to s35 apply.
J and TasTAFE (PDF, 266.7 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Honourable Meg Webb MLC is the Member for Nelson in the Legislative Council. On 3 June 2024, she submitted an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department). She sought information relating to the proposed universal player card gambling system for poker machines.
The Department relied on ss31, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act to exempt some information. Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position on internal review. Ms Webb sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s37 was not made out.
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 259.3 KB)
-
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People
G was employed by the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) as a teacher. Allegations of inappropriate physical contact with students were made and G was suspended from their role. G submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding this suspension.
The Department released some information and relied upon ss6 and 35 to exclude or exempt some information. G sought internal review. Upon internal review the Department no longer relied on s6, however applied ss31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information. G then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out.
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 244.2 KB)
-
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart
Ms Sandwell is a representative of the accommodation booking platform Airbnb. On 24 July 2023, Ms Sandwell requested a range of information related to the City of Hobart’s (Council’s) decision to increase the rates payable for short stay accommodation in the Hobart municipal area.
This application was subject to various delays, however Council eventually determined to refuse aspects of Ms Sandwell’s application under s19. Council also decided that some requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 41 of the Act. Ms Sandwell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Ms Sandwell’s application;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 32 and 35 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss38, 40 and 41 were not made out.
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart (PDF, 388.2 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 16 October 2023, the Honourable Meg Webb MLC made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the murder of Mr Robert Chappell.
The Department released 608 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department released a small amount of additional information but largely maintained its position. Ms Webb then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 239.1 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 30 January, 20 February and 14 March 2023, the Hon Meg Webb MLC made applications to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding evidence used or tested in the murder investigation and trial of Ms Susan Neill-Fraser.
The Department combined the requests and initially refused them pursuant to s19 because they would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Department from its other work.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department reassessed its decision and released some information. It relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some other information.
Ms Webb then sought external review, questioning the exemptions applied and searching conducted by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 252.5 KB)
-
Ella Haddad and Department of Premier and Cabinet
On 25 September 2023, Ms Ella Haddad MP submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) requesting information in relation to workplace complaints.
The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Ms Haddad’s request.
Ms Haddad sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 were varied.
Ella Haddad and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 206.1 KB)
-
Selby Cooper and Department of Health
On 10 November 2022, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act), which was responded to by the Department of Health (the Department). This application requested information related to public health directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a complex history to Mr Cooper’s application, with multiple decisions, reconsiderations and fresh decisions. However, the Department eventually released some information and determined that some information responsive to Mr Cooper’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31, s35, and s36.
Mr Cooper sought an external review of exemptions applied and queried whether the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Selby Cooper and Department of Health (PDF, 287.4 KB)
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing Pty Ltd
On 23 November 2023, Ms Kiera Salerno submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Tasracing Pty Ltd requesting 8 items of information, which primarily related to a workplace dispute between Tasracing and the former General Manager of the Greyhound Adoption Program.
Tasracing’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 35, 36 of the Act applied to information responsive to Ms Salerno’s application. It also set out that information responsive to particular aspects of Ms Salerno’s application could not be located. The original decision was upheld by Tasracing on internal review.
Ms Salerno sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 were varied; and
- Tasracing’s search for information responsive to Ms Salerno’s assessed disclosure application was sufficient.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing Pty Ltd (PDF, 327.8 KB)
-
Rebecca White and Department of Premier and Cabinet
In June 2023, an agreement was made between the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) and Font PR, a public relations company, for media liaison and support in the Office of the Premier. Concerns were raised regarding the possibility of inappropriate access to confidential information.
On 7 July 2023, Ms Rebecca White, then Leader of the Opposition, submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department seeking information regarding the appointment of Font PR.
On 20 September 2023, Ms White sought external review as the timeframe for a decision to be provided had elapsed. The Department subsequently issued a decision and applied ss 31, 35, 36 and 39 to exempt some information.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Rebecca White and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 225.1 KB)
-
Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council
Mr Andrew McCullagh is an elected member of the Northern Midlands Council (Council).
On 19 April 2023, Mr McCullagh submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council seeking information in relation to a planning application and other Council business.
Council applied ss30, 31 and 36 to exempt some information and maintained this position on internal review. Mr McCullagh sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 31 were not made out; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council (PDF, 279.1 KB)
-
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Derwent Valley Council
On 7 June 2023, Mr Derksen-Luelf sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the Derwent Valley Council (Council). The applicant, who is involved in the New Norfolk Distillery (the Distillery), was seeking information about the dissemination of two documents regarding the project - a commercial lease agreement and a letter from the Premier’s Office.
Council located four emails responsive to the request and determined that three were exempt under s31 (legal professional privilege). Mr Derksen-Luelf sought internal review but Council maintained its position. He then sought external review regarding the exemption applied and also querying whether Council had undertaken a sufficient search for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s31 were affirmed; and
* despite valid issues initially presenting, Council ultimately undertook a sufficient search for information responsive to the request.
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Derwent Valley Council (PDF, 299.0 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 22 December 2022, Mr Peter Jacobson made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about his interactions with the Department.
The Department relied upon ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review of this decision, but the Department maintained its position (though it released some additional information). Mr Jacobson sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 297.8 KB)
-
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council
On 23 June 2023 Mr Clem Newton-Brown submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Flinders Council (Council). As part of this application Mr Newton-Brown requested three items of information related to a development application Mr Newton-Brown submitted to Council. This development application proposed to build visitor accommodation on Little Dog Island.
On 16 August 2023 a decision was issued to Mr Newton-Brown by Council’s General Manager, Mr Warren Groves. Mr Groves determined that some information responsive to Mr Newton-Brown’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31 (legal professional privilege) and 36 (personal information) of the Act.
Mr Newton-Brown sought external review of this decision and the Ombudsman determined that Council’s use of ss31 and 36 should be varied.
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council (PDF, 159.0 KB)
-
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania
Mr Lee Moyle was a volunteer Amateur Radio Assessor with the Australian Maritime College of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 26 April 2021, Mr Moyle applied to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information held by the University relating to himself.
The University’s original decision determined that some information was exempt from release under sections 31 (legal professional privilege), 35 (internal deliberative information) and 36 (personal information). Mr Moyle sought internal review. On internal review the University affirmed its initial decision and provided additional reasons in relation to the application of ss35 and 36.
Mr Moyle sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman found that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 should be varied.
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania (PDF, 263.3 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.
On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.
Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)
-
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
- information is exempt pursuant to s35.
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
- exemptions under s35 apply.
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)
-
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice
On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)
-
Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council
On 21 June 2019, Ms Janiece Bryan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Glenorchy City Council (Council). Ms Bryan requested access to legal advice Council had received about whether it had the ability to sell the Derwent Entertainment Centre and surrounding land.
On 11 July 2019 Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan, determining that the information responsive to her request was exempt under s31 of the Act on the basis that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
On 4 November 2019, Ms Bryan made a second application for assessed disclosure to Council, as she considered Council had since waived privilege over the legal advice. On 21 November 2019, Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan in relation to her second application for assessed disclosure. Council refused to accept the application under s20(a) of the Act, setting out that it was a repeat application and that there was no reasonable basis for seeking the same information again. Council also asserted that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under s31 of the Act.
This decision was affirmed on internal review and, on 16 December 2019, Ms Bryan made an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to refuse the application under s20(a);
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied; and
- exemptions under s35 apply.
Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (PDF, 219.2 KB)
-
Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council
On 18 October 2021, Mr Geoffrey Swan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Huon Valley Council (Council). He sought information relating to the investigation into the recruitment process of Council’s new General Manager, commissioned following controversy regarding the way Council managed a conflict of interest that arose during that process. Council issued a decision on 13 October 2021 to refuse the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to:
- legal professional privilege (s31); and
- information related to closed meetings of council (s32).
Mr Swan then sought external review of Council’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council’s use of s31 was varied;
- Council’s use of s32 was varied; and
- Information was found to be exempt pursuant to s35 (internal deliberative information).
Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 193.9 KB)
-
Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania
Mr Trevor Burdon invested in the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) regarding plantations grown by Gunns Plantations Limited (Gunns) on land managed by Forestry Tasmania, now Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT). When Gunns became insolvent in 2013, legal disputes arose between STT and the liquidators for Gunns regarding issues impacting Mr Burdon. On 7 December 2018, Mr Burdon made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the legal settlement of the dispute and alleged ‘gross underpayment’ of MIS investors by STT in that settlement. On 17 April 2019, STT released a decision to Mr Burdon which found that all information responsive to his request was exempt from release pursuant to ss31, 35, 37, 38 and 40 of the Act. Mr Burdon sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s38 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37 and 40 were not required to be assessed, as the relevant information was otherwise exempt.
Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (PDF, 193.1 KB)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.
On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
- Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
- Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
- Council’s use of s35 was varied;
- Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
- Council's use of s39 was varied.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)
-
Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
- Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)
-
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania
Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.
Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.
The Ombudsman found that:
1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.
2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.
3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.
4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.
5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)
-
T and Tasmania Police
T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.
T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)
-
Christine Smart and City of Launceston
Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.
Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.
Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart
The information at issue was whether information contained in a memorandum of Council constituted legal professional privilege under s31. This was in response to Council seeking legal advice relating to the Facebook parody page, "Hobart City Council".
Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart (PDF, 124.7 KB)