Morgan v Workcover Corporation

(2013) 118 SASR 297; [2013] SASCFC 139

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Statutes
2. › Acts of Parliament
3. › Interpretation
4. › Provisos
5. › Burden of proof on party relying on statutory exception
6. › Whether exception to confidentiality obligation in s 7(1) Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA) is a proviso placing onus on defendant
1. Statutes
2. › Acts of Parliament
3. › Enforcement of Statutory Rights and Remedies
4. › Breach of Statutory Duty
5. › Elements of cause of action
6. › Whether Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA) s 7 creates civil liability for breach
7. › Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA), ss 5, 7, 9
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Confidential Information
3. › Obligation of Confidentiality
4. › Statutory obligation of confidentiality
5. › Whether disclosure of whistleblower's identity breached s 7 of Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA)
6. › Whether motivation of informant relevant to whether disclosure was 'appropriate disclosure of public interest information'
1. Appeal and New Trial
2. › Appeal
3. › General Principles
4. › Right of Appeal
5. › Error of Law
6. › Failure to give reasons for decision
7. › Adequacy of reasons
8. › Whether trial judge failed to make necessary findings of fact and determine necessary issues

Quick Take

Section 7 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993 (SA) creates a civil cause of action for breach of statutory duty, and the burden of proving the exception (that disclosure was necessary for proper investigation) lies on the defendant. The statutory test under s 5(2) turns on the informant's belief on reasonable grounds, not their motivation for making the disclosure. It is not prima facie an abuse of process for a party to contest in later proceedings against a different opponent a finding of fact made against that party in earlier proceedings; the usual requirements for abuse of process by re-litigation must be established.