| FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Attorney-General (Cth) v Patrick [2024] FCAFC 126 | |
| File number(s): | SAD 52 of 2024 |
| Judgment of: | RANGIAH, MOSHINSKY AND ABRAHAM JJ |
| Date of judgment: | 25 September 2024 |
| Catchwords: | FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – request for access to an official document of a Minister (the Attorney-General) – where one document (the Document) was within the scope of the request but the request was refused on the basis of two exemptions – where a new person was appointed as Attorney-General – where the new Attorney-General did not have possession of the Document – where the Information Commissioner decided that the Document was not an "official document of a Minister" because it was not in the possession of the Minister at the time of the Information Commissioner's decision – where the primary judge held that the Information Commissioner erred in her construction of the Act – where the primary judge held that the time for determining whether a document is an "official document of a Minister" is the time the request for access is made (and only that time) – whether primary judge's construction was correct – held: appeal dismissed |
| Legislation: | The Constitution, ss 64, 65
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 19, 19A, 19B, 19D–19E, 20 Archives Act 1983 (Cth), ss 2A, 3, 3C, 24 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), ss 3, 4, 11, 11A, 15, 15A, 15AB, 15AC, 16, 21, 24, 24A, 24AA, 24AB, 26A, 27, 27A, 34, 42, 54L, 54S, 55R, 55U, 56, 67 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B |
| Cases cited: | Beesley v Australian Federal Police [2001] FCA 836; 111 FCR 1
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 719 Dallikavak v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 9 FCR 98 EMJ18 v Secretary, Department of Home Affairs [2024] FCAFC 87 |
Page:Attorney-General (Cth) v Patrick (2024, FCAFC).pdf/1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
