CITATION: Cianfrano v Director General, New South 'Wales Treasury [2005] NSWADT 7 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Robert Cianfrano
RESPONDENT
Director General, New South Wales TreasuryFILE NUMBER: 043026; 043234 HEARING DATES: 25-26/08/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/26/2004 DATE OF DECISION:
01/10/2005BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President) APPLICATION: access to documents - business affairs - access to documents - cabinet documents - access to documents - internal working documents - access to documents - legal professional privilege - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - business affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - cabinet documents - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - internal working documents - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - legal professional privilege MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Evidence Act 1995
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic)
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Abigroup Ltd v Akins (1997) 42 NSWLR 623
Attorney General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500
Attorney General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475
Attorney General (UK) v Heinemann Publishers Pty Ltd (the Spycatcher case) (1987) 10 NSWLR 86
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v FFE Building Services Ltd [2003] FCA 1181
Australian Doctors' Fund Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1994) 49 FCR 478
Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501
Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd and Ors [1999] FCA 1061
B v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 168
Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52
Balabel v Air-India [1988] 1 Ch 317
Beesley v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 52
Blackshaw v Lord [1983] 3 WLR 283
BY v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 79
Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department & Sydney Markets Ltd [2004] NSWADT 255
Cianfrano v NSW Department of Commerce [2004] NSWADT 134
Commissioner of Police v The District Court of NSW ('Perrin's case') (1993) 31 NSWLR 606
Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 32 ALR 485; 147 CLR 39
Complete Technology Pty Ltd v Toshiba (Australia) Pty Ltd (1994) 53 FCR 125
Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
D. v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] AC 171
Daniels Corp International Pty Limited v Australia Competition & Consumer Commissioner (2002) 213 CLR 543
DSE (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Intertan Inc (2003) 203 ALR 348
Eccleston and Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs [1993] QICmr 2, (1993) 1 QAR 60
Egan v Chadwick (1999) 49 NSWLR 563
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Fagan v State of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 182
Freeland v General Manager, Liverpool City Council [1999] NSWADT 95
Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83
Harris v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1983) 50 ALR 551
Hynes v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [2004] NSWADT 135
Law Society of New South Wales v General Manager, Workcover Authority…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cianfrano v Director General, NSW Treasury 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.
Details
- Case
- [2005] NSWADT 7
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cianfrano v Director General, NSW Treasury, involved a dispute between an individual and a government agency over the disclosure of certain documents. The applicant sought the disclosure of documents from the Director General of the NSW Treasury under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Director General not to disclose certain documents.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Director General was correct in withholding certain documents under the exceptions provided by the GIPA Act, and whether the applicant had standing to seek disclosure of the documents. The court had to examine the relevant provisions of the GIPA Act, including sections 22 and 23, which deal with the disclosure and non-disclosure of documents, respectively. Additionally, the court had to consider the common law principle of confidentiality and its application to the documents in question.
The court found that the Director General was correct in withholding certain parts of the documents under the exceptions provided by the GIPA Act. However, the court determined that some parts of the documents could be disclosed, as they did not fall under the protected categories. The court also found that the applicant had standing to seek disclosure of the documents, as they were directly affected by the decisions made in the documents. As a result, the court ordered that certain parts of the documents be disclosed to the applicant, while others remained protected under the GIPA Act.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Director General was correct in withholding certain documents under the exceptions provided by the GIPA Act, and whether the applicant had standing to seek disclosure of the documents. The court had to examine the relevant provisions of the GIPA Act, including sections 22 and 23, which deal with the disclosure and non-disclosure of documents, respectively. Additionally, the court had to consider the common law principle of confidentiality and its application to the documents in question.
The court found that the Director General was correct in withholding certain parts of the documents under the exceptions provided by the GIPA Act. However, the court determined that some parts of the documents could be disclosed, as they did not fall under the protected categories. The court also found that the applicant had standing to seek disclosure of the documents, as they were directly affected by the decisions made in the documents. As a result, the court ordered that certain parts of the documents be disclosed to the applicant, while others remained protected under the GIPA Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Matter No. 043026 ; 1.Determination under review affirmed, except in relation to Document 35.2. Document 35 to be disclosed with the exception of the parts referred to in paragraph [73] of these reasons. This decision to take effect after 28 days.; Matter No. 043234; 1. Determination under review 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.