07 December 2025
5 min read
#Government, #Administrative Law
Published by:
Government agencies increasingly face complex Right to Information (RTI) requests from individuals involved in internal disputes, complaints or litigation. These scenarios test the boundaries between statutory transparency obligations, the protection of internal management discussions and the limits of using parallel disclosure regimes to obtain information.
The recent decision in the case of Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203 clarifies the limits of RTI access when tribunal orders and court procedures apply, providing important guidance for agencies, applicants and legal practitioners.
Mr Stella was a student at Griffith University. In 2022, the University conducted preliminary inquiries into whether Mr Stella’s social media commentary breached its Student Misconduct Policy. During those inquiries, Mr Stella provided both written and oral responses, and University staff discussed the complaint internally.
The University ultimately decided not to proceed with a formal investigation and informed Mr Stella of that outcome through a letter dated 6 September 2022, which advised him to avoid similar commentary in the future. Mr Stella believed the complaint was outside the Policy’s scope and that University officers had engaged in improper conduct.
On 27 September 2022, Mr Stella applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI Act) for all documents relating to the complaint and the University’s handling of it. The University granted partial access and refused access to other documents. An internal review resulted in limited further disclosure.
The Information Commissioner affirmed the University’s decision on the first access application and varied the decision on the second, substituting different grounds for refusal (S41 and Griffith University [2023] QICmr 64). Mr Stella then appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Tribunal (QCATA), which dismissed the appeal on 18 March 2025.
Both the Information Commissioner and QCATA determined that two key documents were exempt from release.
In the Court of Appeal proceedings, Mr Stella sought an order compelling the University to disclose the same two documents, arguing the Court should examine them itself.
QCATA had previously made non-publication orders under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 for ‘Part B’ documents, which included the disputed material.
Writing the main judgment for the Court of Appeal, Justice Bradley held that disclosure orders could not be made because UCPR r 223(1) does not apply to appeals. Even if it did, disclosure would only be possible in special circumstances and where the interests of justice required it (r 223(4)(a)). Ordering disclosure in this case would directly conflict with QCATA’s existing non-publication orders.
The Court did not decide whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, but observed that documents recording the University’s investigation of a complaint reflected the exercise of a management function. Such documents may therefore fall within an exemption from release under the RTI Act. The issue was left open because the disclosure application was rejected on procedural grounds.
In the end, the application for disclosure was dismissed, and costs were later awarded against the applicant.
In the course of their judgment, the Court of Appeal made several significant observations:
Agencies
Agencies must remain alert to confidentiality and non-publication orders, which may override RTI access rights. Where such orders exist, they can heavily constrain or preclude disclosure.
Applicants
RTI is the proper statutory pathway for access. Attempting to circumvent it through court disclosure procedures is unlikely to succeed. Applicants seeking documents for litigation must demonstrate a genuine legal need for those documents, particularly in appellate contexts.
Furthermore, documents created in response to one access application do not create a foothold for launching further applications in an ‘endless loop’. Attempting this practice risks being declared vexatious, either by a court or by the Information Commissioner.
Lawyers and RTI practitioners
Lawyers and legal officers, particularly those in the public sector, should be aware of the interplay between RTI rights and other procedural regimes, including tribunal orders and court appeal processes. The Stella decision suggests that even when the RTI Act process is invoked, other procedural or statutory constraints may override access.
The UCPR disclosure rules cannot be used to obtain information that has been refused under the RTI Act or is the subject of non-publication orders. Additionally, decision-makers for RTI release who undertake the section 49 public interest balancing test are not confined to only considering the factors listed in Schedule 4 of the RTI Act.
While the RTI has a pro-disclosure bias, access is limited not only by statutory exemptions but also by broader procedural constraints such as tribunal suppression orders.
The decision reinforces that UCPR disclosure (and other disclosure) provisions do not grant a parallel right to access exempt or protected material and cannot be used by unsuccessful RTI applicants to bypass the RTI decision and obtain access through general procedural rules. RTI must be sought within its own framework.
In employment disputes and investigations, participants may attempt to ‘look behind’ the decision and fish for ammunition by using RTI to obtain material. This decision confirms that agency management can discuss matters openly when performing management functions, and this was an identified public interest factor tending towards exempting documents like this from disclosure to an applicant.
Finally, the decision further emphasises the importance of relevance and necessity in disclosure applications and rejects attempts to fish for documents outside the RTI process.
If you have any questions about the Right to Information process, need guidance on exemptions or procedural requirements, or require legal assistance with a request, please contact us here.
Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.
Published by:
