LG (a Pseudonym) v Office of the Queensland Ombudsman & Anor [2026] QCATA 25

(Qld) s 21, s 42, s 63

Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) s 122, s 156, s165, s 167

[1] LG (a pseudonym) wants information relating to a recruitment process by the Ombudsman in which they were unsuccessful. They were given access to nearly all the relevant documents after a review by the Office of the Information Commissioner ('OIC') but wants more. In particular, they want unredacted access to BC's Curriculum Vitae, application and the panel's decision-making notes.

[2] One of the grounds of LG's appeal to the Tribunal is a failure to provide procedural fairness.

[3] The material before me in this appeal contains a reference to submissions dated 12 March 2025. The appeal book does not contain those submissions. They may or may not exist. I have a copy of an email between two staff members from the Ombudsman outlining that one of the staff members had a telephone conversation with a staff member at the OIC.

[4] In an email, the Ombudsman asked whether there was a document or submission provided to the OIC on 12 March 2025. The OIC replied saying that the submissions they referred to were a file note of the telephone conversation.

[5] The Ombudsman brought an application to regularise the discrepancy, exhibiting the email as evidence that there is nothing further to disclose. LG is not satisfied. I suggested the employee swear an affidavit about the issue of the 12 March 2025 submissions. LG is still not satisfied. They want the OIC to provide a copy of the 12 March 2025 document (if it exists) that was considered when making the decision.

[6] The OIC was given leave to withdraw from this appeal by order of President Mellifont on 10 June 2025.

[7] The Ombudsman says that I cannot compel the OIC to provide anything to the Tribunal, citing s 165(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) ('RTI Act'). That section states that the OIC cannot be compelled to produce an RTI document in third party legal proceedings.

[8] There are a number of reasons why the Ombudsman's approach is flawed.

(a) Firstly, "Third party legal proceedings" is defined as a proceeding other than a legal proceeding started against the commissioner1. These proceedings were commenced against the OIC.

(b) Secondly, the RTI Act contemplates the OIC taking an active part in proceedings such as these. Section 167 of the RTI Act states that the commissioner is entitled to appeal and be heard in any proceeding arising out of the performance of its functions.

(c) Thirdly, s 122(1) of the RTI Act provides that anything done under this Act involving QCAT must be done in accordance with the QCAT Rules and procedures.

(d) Fourthly, the Tribunal may join a party to a proceeding if it is desirable that the party be joined2. If joining the OIC is the only way to obtain relevant information then, clearly, it would be desirable to join it.

(e) Fifthly, s 21 of the QCAT Act provides that the decision-maker must use his or her best endeavours to assist the tribunal in making a decision on review. Admittedly, RTI proceedings are an appeal on only a question of law but, as a model litigant, it behoves the OIC to assist the tribunal to make a decision.

(f) Sixthly, s 63 of the QCAT Act gives the tribunal power to require disclosure by a third party subject only to a valid claim for privilege.

[9] The OIC should disclose the 12 March 2025 document if it exists. If it does not exist, the OIC must swear an affidavit as to what document of that date, if any exists