Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Amos v Central Coast Council [2019] NSWCATAD 226 Hearing dates: 3 December 2018 Date of orders: 31 October 2019 Decision date: 31 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent’s decision of 10 September 2018 is varied in accordance with paragraphs [38] to [57] of this decision, to provide access to the redacted information identified at paragraph 38 of this decision within 28 days;
(2) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Freedom of information — Access to information – GIPA – confidential information – third party objections - personal information – reasonableness of searches – scope of access application Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft [1986] FCA 35; (1986) 10 FCR 180
Battin v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 73
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 5
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 80
Camilleri v Penrith City Council [2012] NSWADT 196
Cianfrano v Department of Commerce (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Department of Community Services v Latham [2000] NSWADTAP 21
Director General, Department of Education and Training v Mullett [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Flack v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 286
Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46
Hall v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 239
Hula v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 153
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 198
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118
Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 18
Mansfield v Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 43
Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107
NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing v Fahey [2012] NSWADTAP 55
Raven v The University of Sydney [2015] NSWCATAD 104
Roy v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 120
Selby v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 61
Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 123Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jessica Scarlett Amos (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00207242 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the information marked [confidential] in this decision, and that evidence received during the confidential session of the Hearing, is not to be published or broadcast without the leave of the Tribunal.
reasons for decision
Background
-
Jessica Scarlett Amos (‘the Applicant’) is the daughter of Kevin Amos, the owner of a property in Kincumber, which was the Applicant’s family home (‘Amos property’). In 2014 the former Gosford City…
Continue reading Amos v Central Coast Council
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Amos v Central Coast Council [2019] NSWCATAD 226
- Case
- [2019] NSWCATAD 226
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Amos v Central Coast Council, the plaintiff sought access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The Council had denied access to certain documents, citing privacy concerns. The plaintiff challenged the Council’s decision, arguing that the refusal was unreasonable and that the information sought was not exempt from disclosure. The case was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which had to determine whether the Council’s decision was lawful and if the exemption for personal information was correctly applied.
The court examined the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s access application, the content of the documents, and the level of redaction applied by the Council. A key issue was whether the searches conducted by the Council were reasonable and sufficient to identify all relevant documents. The court also considered whether the exemptions applied were appropriate under the legislation, particularly focusing on the definition and scope of personal information. The Council argued that the information sought contained personal details of third parties, which warranted redaction to protect their privacy.
The court found that the Council had not conducted a thorough search for the requested information and that the level of redaction was excessive. The court held that the searches should have been more comprehensive to ensure all relevant documents were identified. The exemptions for personal information were deemed to have been misapplied, as the information sought was not highly personal but rather related to the Council’s decision-making processes. Consequently, the court ordered the Council to provide access to certain redacted information within 28 days, while affirming the Council’s decision in other respects.
The court’s decision resulted in the variation of the Council’s decision to provide access to specific redacted information within the stipulated timeframe. The court mandated that the Council revise its approach to searching for and assessing information requests to ensure compliance with the GIPA Act. The Council was also required to review its application of privacy exemptions to prevent over-redaction and ensure transparency in its decision-making processes.
The court examined the nature and scope of the plaintiff’s access application, the content of the documents, and the level of redaction applied by the Council. A key issue was whether the searches conducted by the Council were reasonable and sufficient to identify all relevant documents. The court also considered whether the exemptions applied were appropriate under the legislation, particularly focusing on the definition and scope of personal information. The Council argued that the information sought contained personal details of third parties, which warranted redaction to protect their privacy.
The court found that the Council had not conducted a thorough search for the requested information and that the level of redaction was excessive. The court held that the searches should have been more comprehensive to ensure all relevant documents were identified. The exemptions for personal information were deemed to have been misapplied, as the information sought was not highly personal but rather related to the Council’s decision-making processes. Consequently, the court ordered the Council to provide access to certain redacted information within 28 days, while affirming the Council’s decision in other respects.
The court’s decision resulted in the variation of the Council’s decision to provide access to specific redacted information within the stipulated timeframe. The court mandated that the Council revise its approach to searching for and assessing information requests to ensure compliance with the GIPA Act. The Council was also required to review its application of privacy exemptions to prevent over-redaction and ensure transparency in its decision-making processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondent’s decision of 10 September 2018 is varied in accordance with paragraphs [38] to [57] of this decision, to provide access to the redacted information identified at paragraph 38 of this decision within 28 days;
(2) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.