Queensland Community Newspapers Pty Ltd and Redland Shire Council; Civic Projects (Raby Bay) Pty Ltd (Third Party); Sinclair Knight Merz (Fourth Paty); Coffey Partners International Pty Ltd (Fifth Party)

Queensland Community Newspapers Pty Ltd and Redland Shire Council; Civic Projects (Raby Bay) Pty Ltd (Third Party); Sinclair Knight Merz (Fourth Party); Coffey Partners International Pty Ltd (Fifth Party)
(1996 L0006, 25 March 1998)

Queensland Community Newspapers Pty Ltd and Redland Shire Council; Civic Projects (Raby Bay) Pty Ltd (Third Party); Sinclair Knight Merz (Fourth Party); Coffey Partners International Pty Ltd (Fifth Party)
(1997 L0024, 25 March 1998) 

The matter in issue in this case consisted of reports by a firm of geotechnical consultants which had been commissioned by the respondent to investigate and report on revetment (canal wall) stability problems being experienced at the Raby Bay Canal Estate in the Redland Shire. The third parties were involved in the development or construction of the Estate. The reports were claimed by the Council and the third parties to be exempt from disclosure to the applicant (the proprietor of the Redland Times newspaper) under s.45(1)(c) of the FOI Act, and also under s.41(1) and s.42(1)(d).  The Information Commissioner decided that the reports did not qualify for exemption under any of those provisions. 

With respect to s.45(1)(c), the Information Commissioner applied the principles explained in Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms Ltd (1994) 1 QAR 491, in deciding that only some segments of the reports concerned the third parties' business, professional, commercial or financial affairs and could, if disclosed, be reasonably expected to have an adverse effect on those affairs. In any event, the Information Commissioner decided that the public interest considerations favouring disclosure of the contents of the reports (to enable interested members of the public to gain an understanding of the technical aspects of the problems experienced at Raby Bay, what has been done to overcome them, and the recommendations for future management of the problems, including an estimate of the rectification costs involved) were of such substantial weight as to overwhelm those considerations said to tell against disclosure. 

With respect to s.41(1), the Information Commissioner applied the principles established in Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (1993) 1 QAR 60 in deciding that virtually all of the reports comprised matter excluded from eligibility for exemption under s.41(1), because it merely consisted of factual or statistical matter (see s.41(2)(b) of the FOI Act) or expert opinion or analysis (see s.41(2)(c) of the FOI Act).  The Information Commissioner stated that even if the Office were satisfied that all of the contents of the reports fell within s.41(1)(a), and that none was excluded by s.41(2), it would be the Information Commissioner's finding that disclosure of the reports would not, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. 

With respect to s.42(1)(d), the Information Commissioner found that there was no reasonable basis for an expectation that disclosure of the reports could prejudice the impartial adjudication of legal actions which a number of residents of the Estate had commenced against the respondent, and one of the third parties, in the Supreme Court of Queensland.