Bannister v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation

The issues for determination

1. The Applicant has sought access to information held by the Respondent. The Respondent has determined to release some information and to withhold or redact other information. The Applicant does not accept the Respondent's reasons for refusing to release that information.
2. The question for determination is whether Respondent's decision to withhold the information is the correct and preferable decision.

Applicable legislation

1. The Tribunal must make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it: section 63(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997. When determining an application for an administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may confirm or vary that decision, set it aside and make a substitute decision, or set aside the decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator.
2. The approach to be taken in applications under the GIPA Act has been considered in numerous cases before this Tribunal. For a recent consideration see the discussion by Senior Member Leal in Kanak v NSW Department of Education and Communities [2017] NSWCATAD 206.
3. The objects of the GIPA Act are set out in section 3(1): In order to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public by: (a) authorising and encouraging the proactive public release of government information by agencies, and (b) giving members of the public an enforceable right to access government information, and (c) providing that access to government information is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
4. "Government information" is given a wide meaning under section 4 of the GIPA Act being "information contained in a record held by an agency."
5. Clause 4 of Schedule 4 to the Act defines 'personal information' as the following: "personal information" means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual (whether living or dead) whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion. (2) Personal information includes such things as an individual's fingerprints, retina prints, body samples or genetic characteristics. (3) Personal information does not include any of the following: (a) information about an individual who has been dead for more than 30 years, (b) information about an individual (comprising the individual's name and non-personal contact details) that reveals nothing more than the fact that the person was engaged in the exercise of public functions, (c) information about an individual that is of a class, or is contained in a document of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subclause.
6. The GIPA Act establishes a presumption in favour of the disclosure of government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure (section 5). In accordance with section 9(1) of the GIPA Act, the Applicant has a legally enforceable right to access the information requested, unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosing the information.
7. The general public interest considerations in favour of access to government information set out in section 12 of the GIPA Act mean that the balance is always weighted in favour if disclosure. Section 12 provides: 12 Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure (1) There is a general public interest in favour of the disclosure of government information. (2) Nothing in this Act limits any other public interest considerations in favour of the disclosure of government information that may be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information. The following are examples of public interest considerations in favour of disclosure of information: (a) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to promote open discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability or contribute to positive and informed debate on issues of public importance. (b) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and, in particular, their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public. (c) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to ensure effective oversight of the expenditure of public funds. (d) The information is personal information of the person to whom it is to be disclosed. (e) Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal or substantiate that an agency (or a member of an agency) has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct. …
8. Section 13 of the GIPA Act provides - There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information for the purposes of this Act if (and only if) there are public interest considerations against disclosure and, on balance, those considerations outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.
9. Section 13 of the GIPA Act requires decision makers to: 1. identify relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure, 2. identify relevant public interest considerations against disclosure, 3. attribute weight to each consideration for and against disclosure, and 4. determine whether the balance of the public interest lies in favour of or against disclosure of the government information.
10. Section 15 of the GIPA Act sets out the principles that apply to public interest determination as follows: 1. Agencies must exercise their functions so as to promote the object of this Act. 2. Agencies must have regard to any relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner. 3. The fact that disclosure of information might cause embarrassment to, or a loss of confidence in, the Government is irrelevant and must not be taken into account. 4. The fact that disclosure of information might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by any person is irrelevant and must not be taken into account. 5. In the case of disclosure in response to an access application, it is relevant to consider that disclosure cannot be made subject to any conditions on the use or disclosure of information.
11. The table to section 14 sets out the relevant public interest considerations against disclosure. The public interest considerations listed in the table to section 14 are the only public interest considerations against disclosure applicable to this matter.

Summary of material

1. The Respondent relies on the evidence of its Manager, Government and Corporate Services, Internal Audit, Mr Matthew Lyon; and that of its Manager, Parliamentary and Ministerial Services, Mr Tim Noonan.
2. Ms Case and Ms Campora also provided submissions on behalf of the Respondent.
3. The Applicant relies on her own evidence and submissions in support of her case.

Mr Lyon's evidence

1. The Respondent relies on the affidavit of Mr Lyon dated 24 February 2017, which was filed in the Tribunal on a confidential basis. Mr Lyon is the Manager of the Respondent's Internal Audit unit. The Internal Audit unit is responsible for undertaking audits of the Respondent's operations, conducting investigations into allegations of fraud and corrupt conduct, and providing advice in relation to fraud and corruption matters.
2. Mr Lyon provided a detailed history of the investigation that was undertaken in relation to the Applicant's protected disclosure. He noted the importance of secrecy in relation to the investigation. The initial assessment of the Applicant's disclosure was undertaken internally. As a result of the assessment a recommendation was made that an investigator be appointed to perform a preliminary investigation. The Internal Audit Bureau ("the IAB") was contracted to investigate the matter and provide a preliminary report.
3. Ultimately, the Applicant was advised that her allegations were not supported by available evidence and that no further action was proposed to be taken.
4. A number of those officers named in the complaint are still employed by the Respondent. The IAB investigator did not discuss the allegations with those persons against whom allegations were made. Mr Lyon stated that to the best of his knowledge, those individuals remain unaware that such allegations were made against them or that a preliminary investigation was undertaken that ultimately found that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint.
5. During the investigation, the IAB investigator was provided access to the personnel files of those named in the allegations.
6. [Not for publication]
7. Those personnel files are captured within the scope of the Applicant's GIPA access application.

Mr Noonan's evidence

1. Mr Noonan determined the Applicant's access application. He provided an affidavit in these proceedings. His evidence is that the access application sought information gathered as a result of the investigation of the Applicant's disclosure and that this included, among other things, personnel files of various individuals who were unknowingly the subject of investigation.
2. He did not undertake third party consultation when determining the access application. He could not consult without revealing the Applicant's identity and the fact that she had made a PID. In deciding not to consult he took into account the fact that the complaint was unsubstantiated and that no employee who was the subject of investigation was aware of that fact. He considered that if made aware, they would likely have suffered unnecessary distress.

Overview

1. The Respondent identified the following public interest considerations against disclosure set out in the Table to section 14(2) of the GIPA Act as relevant: clauses 1(e), 1(f), 1(h), 2(b), 3(a), 3(d), 3(e) and 4(d).
2. In summary, these factors are: 1. Clause 1(e) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency; 2. Clause 1(f) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions; 3. Clause 1(h) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct, effectiveness or integrity of any audit, test, investigation or review conducted by or on behalf of an agency by revealing its purpose, conduct or results (whether or not commenced and whether or not completed); 4. Clause 2(b) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law or prejudice the enforcement of the law; 5. Clause 3(a) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information; 6. Clause 3(d) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair trial of any person, the impartial adjudication of any case or a person's right to procedural fairness; 7. Clause 3(e) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal false or unsubstantiated allegations about a person that are defamatory; 8. Clause 4(d) - that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice any person's legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests.
3. The issues that the Respondent has identified can be grouped under four of the categories set out in the table to section 14 of the GIPA Act: 1. Responsible and effective government - cl 1(e), 1(f) and 1(h); 2. Law enforcement and security - cl 2(b); 3. Individual rights, judicial process and natural justice - cl 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e); and 4. Business interests of other persons - cl 4(d).
4. Pursuant to section 105 of the GIPA Act the onus is on the Respondent to justify its decision. In relation to each of the asserted section 14 table factors the Respondent must establish that the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have the effect outlined in the table.
5. In that regard it relies on the evidence of Mr Lyon and Mr Noonan. The Respondent has also provided the Tribunal with copies of the documents that are in issue, on a confidential basis. I was taken to those documents in a confidential session and to a large extent the nature of those documents is apparent from the face of the documents. Nevertheless, Ms Case has directed me to the specific documents and made oral submissions in regard to their content and the effects that could reasonably be expected from disclosure of the information contained in them.
6. The confidential session was conducted in the absence of the Applicant and therefore she has not had access to much of the material that is in issue. She has made submissions in regard to the approach to be taken when considering the confidential material and I have taken those submissions into account.
7. As I have noted above, I will limit my discussion of the content of the withheld material to avoid the possibility that information might be disclosed inadvertently.

Responsible and effective government - cl 1(e), 1(f) and 1(h)

1. The Respondent relies on the reasoning that is set out in Mr Noonan's decision which stated: The IAB investigation report and associated communications and documents sought under this application have the necessary characteristics to fall under all three of the above clauses. The documents together are part of a deliberation conducted and form an opinion, advice and recommendation given, as required by clause 1(e); and they were prepared in meeting the agency's function to enforce the PIDA, as required by clause 1(f); and they can also be classified as an investigation or review conducted, which if disclosed, would reveal its purpose and results, as required by clause 1(h). To meet the second part of the test, disclosure of the documents would need to cause the prejudice outlined in each clause. In this regard, it is noted that the investigation was only a fact finding investigation to gather preliminary information in response to a PID. Its purpose was to determine whether there was a case to answer to warrant the need for a more formal investigation. As a result, the named individuals subject to the investigation were not informed that their conduct had been reported as a PID or that they were under preliminary investigation The methodology of the investigation was designed to conceal its connection to the PIDA until there was sufficient confirmatory evidence, while at the same time taking care not to compromise procedural fairness, should the investigation identify the need to conduct further investigations. An example of this in practise was the plan for the investigation to proceed in small increments, and by the time of its conclusion, there had been no direct contact made or interviews conducted with named individuals in the PID, apart from limited contact with two of those individuals. As the preliminary investigation found the allegations to be unsubstantiated and the matter was not going to proceed any further as a PID, there was no longer any need to advise the named individuals that they were the subject of a PID and provide them with their procedural fairness rights under the process. As a result, those individuals remain unaware of what has occurred. This outcome was acceptable in the circumstances given that the allegations were not substantiated, and appropriate as it allowed the matter to be closed with the least amount of disruption to normal business and stress on staff, and this stability has continued uninterrupted since. However, the return to a normal operating environment is dependent on the matter remaining strictly confidential, which will not be possible if third party consultations are conducted with these individuals, which is mandatory before any disclosure of their information under this application can occur. The conduct of third party consultation internally with individual staff members is highly unusual and when it occurs the parties are aware of the details and reasons behind it. However, third party consultation with members of staff about access to their personnel records by someone who cannot be revealed (due to the obligation not to disclose your identity) is unheard of. Aside from the unanimous objections to disclosure that will almost certainly be received, it will create questions and concerns that are likely to result in further investigations and enquiries by these staff seeking answers to the identity and motives of the person seeking access, as there is no obvious reason why someone whose identity must be kept secret would want access to that information, and the inability to disclose even the reason for the secrecy is likely to raise alarm even further. This will significantly prejudice the ability to maintain confidentiality in this matter and could result in these individuals learning about the allegations made about them and the fact that they were under investigation in connection with the PIDA for the first time, and in the least ideal or appropriate manner. It is also likely to put in jeopardy the ability to keep your identity confidential.
2. For those reasons Mr Noonan determined that it was not appropriate to conduct third party consultations with those individuals who were the subject of the allegations.
3. The Respondent submits that those individuals remain unaware of the allegations and the investigation and that the disclosure of the information that the Applicant is seeking would reveal the existence of the investigation, the investigative methodology and its results. The release has the potential to cause severe consequences for the individuals considered in the report
4. The Respondent also submits that it would also prejudice the effective exercise of the agency's functions of investigating complaints. People who might otherwise make a disclosure may be discouraged from doing so if they are aware that their confidentiality might not be protected.
5. The Applicant disputes the Respondent's contention of the consequences that could be expected from release of the information. She is critical of the approach that the Respondent took to the investigation of her PID and challenges assertions in relation to the audit and probity standards of the investigation. She contends that because the process was flawed, any protections that would otherwise attach to a PID because of its confidential nature should not be given conclusive weight in the circumstances of this matter.
6. She noted that as part of the determination of her access application she was provided with a heavily redacted report. As a consequence, it is now on the public record that an investigation into her PID was carried out. She submits that the fact that an investigation took place and the methodology that was utilised in the investigation is a matter of public record.
7. The Applicant also points to the Respondent's policies in relation to reporting fraud and corruption and notes that while there is an obligation on the Respondent to maintain confidentiality where possible and where appropriate, there is no blanket guarantee of confidentiality.

Discussion

1. I do not agree with the Applicant in regard to the extent of the information that is publicly available as a result of the information that has been released already.
2. As she has observed, the released report has been heavily redacted. I agree with the Respondent that the information that has not been released would, if disclosed, reveal a significant amount of information that is not publicly available.
3. In Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 80 the Tribunal was satisfied that both Clause 1(d) and Clause 1(f) applied. Judicial Member Isenberg stated at paragraph [38]: "38. ... On the basis of the Appeal Panel's decision, the test is not whether a particular person whose confidential information is being considered for disclosure could reasonably be expected to refuse to supply such information in future, but whether the agency will be able to obtain such information in future. ... I find that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to the Police of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of the Police's functions and that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by the Police of the Police's functions".
4. In my view, the circumstances of this matter are comparable to Camilleri in that the ability of the Respondent to obtain information would be affected. I agree that the release could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise of the Respondent's functions in that some staff members who would otherwise make a PID might not do so because of the concern that their identity might be disclosed.
5. In the circumstances it is my view that this public interest consideration against disclosure should be given significant weight.
6. [Not for publication]
7. I note that the Respondent has identified some additional information that should be released. I agree with that assessment and accordingly, if it is necessary for me to do so, I order that the identified information is to be released to the Applicant.

Law enforcement and security - cl 2(b)

1. Ms Campora submitted that as a matter of simple logic, some secrecy must accompany an effective investigation, in order to prevent the alleged wrongdoers from finding out that allegations have been made which could lead to crucial evidence being destroyed.
2. She referred to Mr Noonan's decision in which he stated that any reduction in the ability to maintain the secrecy of covert enquiries would make them less effective as an investigative tool. If that were to occur it would prejudice future investigations and detections of PID and other serious allegations of wrong doing.
3. The Respondent contends that the release of the withheld information could be expected to have that effect.
4. The Applicant contends that the Respondent has failed to meet its Code of Conduct Core Values. It has an obligation to recruit and promote employees on merit; take responsibility for decisions and actions; and provide transparency to enable public scrutiny. She submits that the information should be released to enable public scrutiny of the Respondent's processes.

Discussion

1. I agree with the Respondent in regard to the need for secrecy in at least the early stages of an investigation. I also agree that any reduction in the ability to maintain the secrecy of covert enquiries would make them less effective as an investigative tool.
2. However, the information in issue is related to an investigation that has already been completed. I do not accept that in the circumstances of this matter the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the prevention, detection or investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the law or prejudice the enforcement of the law.
3. In the circumstances it is my view that this public interest consideration against disclosure should be given no weight.

Individual rights, judicial process and natural justice - cl 3(a), 3(d) and 3(e)

1. The Respondent contends that the material sought by the GIPA application contains a substantial amount of personal information which would fall within the definition of 'personal information' in clause 4 of Schedule 4 to the GIPA Act.
2. The information captured also examines recruitment and other human resource matters, as well as serious misconduct issues. Such information is highly sensitive and personal and is treated with the strictest of confidence.
3. The Respondent further contends that much of the withheld material would not be known to the Applicant and so it would be revealed to the Applicant if it were released. It therefore meets the requirements for clause 3(a).
4. The Respondent notes that the definition of personal information under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("the Privacy Act") does not include information about an individual that has been collected in the course of an investigation arising out of a PID. It also excludes information "information or an opinion about an individual's suitability for appointment or employment as a public sector official". The definition of personal information under the GIPA Act does not contain the same exclusions.
5. The Respondent submits that the definition of 'personal information' contained in clause 4 of Schedule 4 to the GIPA Act is applicable in the circumstances of this matter.
6. The Respondent further submits that as those being investigated were not aware of the existence of the investigation, they were also unaware of the allegations being made against them and have not been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them. Release of the information would have the result of revealing unsubstantiated allegations about each of those persons that are likely to be defamatory.
7. The Applicant again notes that there is no guarantee of confidentiality in relation to a PID investigation. While she accepts that under the GIPA Act there are some protections in this area, she submits that this still has to be weighed against the public interest in favour of disclosure.
8. In regard to the fact that consultation has not taken place, she submitted that the Tribunal could order that the Respondent carry out that consultation.
9. The Applicant also noted that subsection 4(3)(j) of the Privacy Act provides: (3) Personal information does not include any of the following: … (j) information or an opinion about an individual's suitability for appointment or employment as a public sector official
10. She contends that any information about an individual that has been collected in the course of a PID investigation would be an opinion about the individual's suitability for employment and therefore is not to be regarded as 'personal information' for the purposes of this consideration.
11. She submits that in any event, simply because information is identified as personal information under the GIPA Act does not automatically exclude that information from disclosure. The public interest must dictate the outcome of an access application. The relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure of the information need to be balanced against the relevant public interest considerations against disclosure of the information. In this regard she referred to the relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure set out in section 12 of the GIPA Act.

Discussion

1. [Not for publication]
2. [Not for publication]
3. I note the Respondent's submissions in regard to the interaction and differences between the GIPA Act and the Privacy Act. I agree with the Respondent that the definition of 'personal information' contained in the GIPA Act is applicable to the circumstances of this matter. I also agree that the definition does not contain an exclusion comparable to that in subsection 4(3)(j) of the Privacy Act. That subsection is therefore not applicable to this matter.
4. I agree with the Applicant that the considerations against disclosure that the Respondent has raised are not conclusive presumptions and are factors to be weighed against the considerations in favour of release of the information.
5. I also agree that there is no blanket guarantee of confidentiality in the PID investigation process.
6. However, I accept the arguments raised by the Respondent in regard to the information concerning individuals who were the subject of the Applicant's PID and who were never advised of the complaint or that the investigation has taken place. They may be aware that an investigation of some kind has taken place but they would not be aware that they were the subject of the investigation.
7. In McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44 at paragraph [73], the Tribunal accepted that "information and opinion about the conduct of employees or contractors of the Agency in the course of undertaking their duties, whether authorised or not, is personal information within the meaning of the GIPA Act".
8. I followed that approach in Singh v Legal Aid Commission (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAD 5. At paragraph [49] I found that information about work performance, complaints about other staff members, and misconduct allegations concern the personal information of the public servant making the complaint, and the person who is the subject of the complaint. I am still of that view.
9. As is to be expected, the Applicant's knowledge of what is contained in the withheld material is limited and she has made inferences based on other information she has been given. It appears that some of those inferences are not correct and much of her argument that is based on those inferences is also not correct.
10. I am satisfied that the Applicant has wrongly assessed the extent of the detail that is contained in the withheld information.
11. In the circumstances it is my view that very significant weight is to be given to the considerations against disclosure of that information.

Business interests of other persons - cl 4(d)

1. The Respondent contends that the withheld information contains serious allegations against a number of persons. It further contends that the disclosure of these allegations would affect a person's professional reputation. This in turn is likely to prejudice their professional and/or employment interests.
2. In contrast, the Applicant argues that the only outcome of the investigation was that it showed procedural inadequacies. Other than that, her allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. She submits that this finding could not affect a person's reputation adversely. Further, she submits that disclosure could only prejudice the employment or professional interests of those affected if the allegations were upheld.

Discussion

1. [Not for publication]
2. While I accept that there is merit in the Applicant's argument regarding the potential effect of an unsubstantiated allegation, I do not accept that it is conclusive to this point. In my view, the nature of the discussion in the investigation report in relation to a number of individuals is such that release of the information could prejudice their employment or professional interests.
3. In my view this consideration should be given reasonable weight.

The Balancing Test and the Public Interest

1. The relationship between the relevant sections of the GIPA Act that address the public interest considerations was examined in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel case of Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri [ 2012] NSWADTAP 19: 24. Putting to one side the cases where a conclusive presumption is relied upon, the Act envisages a two-step approach to the question of whether information has been properly refused. 25. ... The agency case for refusal must rely on one or more of the section 14 Table considerations. The Tribunal's task is then to weigh that case against the factors favouring disclosure (s 13), mindful of the injunctions that appear in both ss 12 and 15. It is important, in our view, that the Tribunal proceed in the structured way reflected by these provisions. The Table considerations are concerned with systemic features of the operation of government.
2. The Respondent accepts that there is a statutory presumption in favour of disclosure and also accepts that the Applicant has a relevant personal interest in the information. Section 55 of the GIPA Act allows the personal factors of the application to be taken into account.
3. It is common ground that the considerations in favour of disclosure set out in section 12 to the GIPA Act are applicable.
4. However, the Respondent submits that in balancing the public interest considerations for and against disclosure, the circumstances of this matter and the background events that led to the preparation of most of the material that is the subject of the GIPA application are considerations that weigh heavily against disclosure.
5. In contrast, the Applicant contends that disclosure is warranted so that the flaws in the Respondent's procedures can be exposed to public scrutiny.
6. I note the statutory presumption in favour of disclosure. I agree with the importance of transparency in matters that were the subject of the Applicant's PID and of the conduct of the Respondent in its investigative processes.
7. As I have noted above, I consider that significant weight is to be given to several of the considerations against disclosure. These are to be weighed against the factors favouring disclosure.
8. On balance it is my view that the Respondent has made the correct and preferable decision in refusing to release the withheld information.
9. I am particularly concerned about the personal information that has been captured by the access application. It is probable that the Applicant is not aware of the nature of some of that information and it is likely that if she were aware of its nature she would have excluded it from her request. Nevertheless it is within the scope of the request and the Respondent has correctly identified it as such.
10. In my view, insofar as the withheld information is personal information, the considerations against release strongly outweigh the considerations in favour of release.
11. Insofar as the withheld information concerns the methodology, conduct of and the outcome of the investigation I am less persuaded in regard to the consequences that would reasonably be expected to flow from the release of the information. However, given the amount of information that is already available to the Applicant, it is my view that on balance the considerations against release also outweigh the considerations in favour of release.
12. In my view, with a single exception, it follows that the Respondent's decision to withhold the information is the correct and preferable decision and it should be affirmed. That exception is the information that I have referred to at paragraph [56] above. The Respondent should release the additional information that it has identified as appropriate to be released.

Orders 1. The Respondent is to release to the Applicant the additional information that it has identified as appropriate to be released. 2. The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 March 2018