Hearl and Mulgrave Shire Council
(1993 L0006, 27 June 1994)
In this case, the Information Commissioner determined that, by virtue of s.88(1)(b) of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner possesses power under Part 5 of the FOI Act to negotiate with an applicant to agree on more precise terms for the reframing of an FOI access application.
The respondent Council agreed to supply documents falling within the terms of the reframed FOI access application, apart from 17 pages claimed to be exempt under s.43(1) of the FOI Act (legal professional privilege).
The applicant's initial FOI access application was predominantly framed as a series of questions, seeking answers, rather than as a request for access to documents. The Information Commissioner stated that the FOI Act confers no legal right to obtain answers to questions. The Information Commissioner also commented that, where appropriate, an FOI access application framed as a series of questions should probably be interpreted as a request for any information in documentary form which relates to the questions as framed.
In respect of several parts of the applicant's FOI access application, the Information Commissioner decided to exercise the power conferred by s.77(1) of the FOI Act not to review further, as the Information Commissioner was satisfied that the application for review was vexatious, misconceived and lacking in substance.
The Information Commissioner also decided that the 17 documents claimed by the respondent Council to be exempt under s.43(1) were clearly subject to legal professional privilege, and exempt as claimed.
