Grant and Pine Rivers Shire Council; Chapman (Third Parties)

Application number:
2005 F0746
Decision date:
Monday, Apr 30, 2007

Grant and Pine Rivers Shire Council; Chapman (Third Parties)
 (2005 F0746, 30 April 2007) 

Section 46(1)(a) – whether matter in issue subject to an equitable obligation of confidence – whether the ‘iniquity’ defence is made out

The applicant sought review of the decision of the Pine Rivers Shire Council (PRSC) to refuse him access to a copy of a valuation report and covering letter in respect of industrial land owned by the third parties.  One of the third parties is the Mayor of PRSC.  The applicant alleged certain wrongdoings by both the third parties and PRSC in relation to the circumstances surrounding the resumption of the third parties’ land and payment of compensation. 

PRSC contended that the matter in issue was exempt under section 46(1)(a) of the FOI Act. PRSC contended that much of the valuation provided by the third parties was subject to an equitable obligation of confidence, and would found an action for breach of confidence.  AC Henry considered each of the requirements necessary to show that information is capable of protection in equity and determined that each of those requirements were met in respect of the matter remaining in issue. 

The applicant contended that the alleged actions of PRSC and the third parties in relation to the resumption of the third parties’ land and consequent payment of compensation were sufficient to show that the iniquity defence was made out, and justified release of the matter in issue.  AC Henry determined that it was appropriate to consider the availability of a defence of iniquity in the context of section 46(1)(a) of the FOI Act.  AC Henry considered that to succeed with such a defence release of the matter in issue would need to have the effect of disclosing the existence of or the real likelihood of, the existence of an iniquity that is a crime, civil wrong or serious misdeed of public importance.  AC Henry decided that the matter remaining in issue in this review would not reveal an iniquity of the kind required for this defence to succeed.  AC Henry found that the matter remaining in issue was exempt under section 46(1)(a) of the FOI Act.