Camilleri v Penrith City Council

[2012] NSWADT 196

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Camilleri v Penrith City Council [2012] NSWADT 196
Hearing dates:	27 August 2012
Decision date:	21 September 2012
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	Naida Isenberg, Judicial Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:	Neighbourhood dispute-complaints to council- access application-reasonable searches - overriding public interest against disclosure - substance of complaints known to applicant
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 Curtin v Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56 DQ v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 215 Fahey v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing [2012] NSW ADT 181 Hemeon v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 201 O'Hara v North Sydney Council [2005] NSWADT 100 Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Clement Camilleri (Applicant) Penrith City Council (Respondent) Martin Bartolo (Joined party)
Representation:	C Camilleri (Applicant in person) M Bullivant (Respondent) M Bartolo (Joined party in person)
File Number(s):	123049

reasons for decision

Background

1. The applicant, Mr Camilleri has been in dispute with the owner of a neighbouring property, Mr Bartolo, for some time. During that time they have complained to the respondent (and other agencies) about each other's conduct.

1. By application dated 28 November 2011 the applicant applied to the respondent for access to government information pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) for access to the following documents:

All complaints made by Martin Bartolo of [address], to Penrith City Council in relation to Clement Camilleri of [address] in the last 20 years.

1. A total of 18 documents were identified.

1. Under s 54 of the GIPA Act there is an obligation to consult a person before disclosing their personal information, where it appears that:

• the person may reasonably be expected to have concerns about the disclosure of the information, and
• those concerns may reasonably be expected to be relevant to the question of whether there is a public interest consideration against disclosure of the information.

1. The respondent consulted with Mr Bartolo, who expressed the view that he did not want documents released to the applicant.

1. Taking into account Mr Bartolo's views, the respondent declined to provide the information to the applicant, on the basis that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of the documents. The applicant now seeks review of that decision.

1. On an application for review to the Tribunal, the onus is on the agency to establish that the decision the subject of review is justified: s 105(1).

Joinder

1. At the invitation of the respondent, Mr Bartolo attended a Planning Meeting conducted by the Tribunal and expressed the view that he wished to be heard in the application for review. The Tribunal decided that Mr Bartolo was a person who could be…