Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cahalan v Lane Cove Council [2023] NSWCATAD 209 Hearing dates: 24 May 2023 Date of orders: 4 August 2023 Decision date: 04 August 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Government information - whether overriding public interest against disclosure - confidential information - information provided in confidence - prejudice to court proceedings - competitive commercial - legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests – conclusive presumption - legal professional privilege
Legislation Cited: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Information Act 2002 (NT)
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) Amendment (Outdoor Events) 2020
Cases Cited: AFW v WorkCover Authority of NSW [2013] NSWADT 51
Auld v Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2017] NSWCATAD 160
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2016] NSWCATAD 287
Clear Wealth Pty Ltd v Kwong (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1233
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Fine (2014) 87 NSWLR 1
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Fine [2014] NSWCATAP 24
Cruickshank v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 115
Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Fire and Rescue (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 113
Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2019] NSWCATAD 34
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Fomiatti v Su (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 210
Guthrie v Lane Cove Council [2019] NSWCATAD 74
Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46
Honeysett v Director General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 227
Hopson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 379
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Johnson v Wollondilly Shire Council [2022] NSWCATAD 182
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Lock the Gate Alliance v Department of Planning and Environment & Department of Premier and Cabinet [2019] NSWCATAD 6
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118
Male v Kempsey Shire Council [2022] NSWCATAD 39
Marrickville Council v Botany Council [2015] NSWCATAD 144
Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292
Newcastle City Council v Newcastle East Residents Action Group [2018] NSWCATAP 254
Pedestrian Council of Australia Limited v North Sydney Council [2014] NSWCATAD 80
Public Service Assn v Premier's Department [2002] NSWADT 277
Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Forbidden Foods Pty Limited; Forbidden Foods Pty Limited v Rice Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAP 182
Ross v Lane Cove Council (2014) 86 NSWLR 34
Seremetis v Commissioner of Police; Seremetis v Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 317
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cahalan v Lane Cove Council and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWCATAD 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the information in question should be disclosed despite the Council's assertion of an overriding public interest against disclosure. The court had to consider whether the information was confidential, whether disclosure would prejudice court proceedings, and whether it would affect the competitive commercial or legitimate business, commercial, professional, or financial interests of any party. The court also needed to determine whether the Council's decision was consistent with the provisions of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW).
The court examined the nature of the information and the circumstances in which it was provided, finding that it was indeed confidential. It further found that the information was provided in confidence for a legitimate purpose, and that disclosure would likely prejudice ongoing court proceedings. The court also considered the competitive commercial interests involved and concluded that there was a strong likelihood that disclosure would harm those interests. Given these findings, the court held that the Council's decision to withhold the information was consistent with the statutory presumption that it is in the public interest to protect confidential information. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is 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.