Legal Research
Cases
Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department

Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department

Link copied

Case Copied 9 May 2006 30 min read

Contents

On this page

Pending Appeal:

CITATION: Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Robert Cianfrano
RESPONDENT
Director General, Premier's Department

FILE NUMBER: 053154

HEARING DATES: 24/08/2005 & 22/11/2005

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/09/2005

DATE OF DECISION:
05/09/2006

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President)

CATCHWORDS: access to documents - substantial and unreasonable diversion of agency's resources - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - substantial and unreasonable diversion of agency's resources

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT)

CASES CITED: Cianfrano v Director General, New South Wales Treasury [2005] NSWADT 7
Coe and Chief Minister’s Department [2006] ACTAAT 8
Re Timmins and National Media Liaison Service (1986) 9 ALN 196
Re Eastman and Department of Territories and Local Government (1983) 5 ALD 192
Re Carver and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1987) 6 AAR 317
Wright v SECV [1998] VCAT 162
Tillmans Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union and Ors (1979-80) 27 ALR 367
Radicic v Australian Postal Commission (1999) 59 ALD 157; [1999] FCA 0574
Re Borthwick and University of Melbourne (1985) 1 VAR 33
Re Mildenhall and Department of Education, unreptd, VCAT, 9 April 1999
Coulston v Office of Public Prosecutions [2001] VCAT 10
Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246
Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35
Re SRB and SRC and Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services (1994) 33 ALD 171
Wright v SECV [1998] VCAT 162
Allanson and Queensland Tourist & Travel Corporation [1997] QICmr 20; (1997) 4 QAR 219
Meretfield v Department of Human Services [1998] VCAT 299
Re A and Dept of Human Services, VCAT, unreptd, 4 November 1998
Re Chapman and Victoria Parks, VCAT, unreptd, 6 December 1999
Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35
Prasad v Minister for Immigration 65 ALR 549

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
K Richardson of counsel, instructed by A Johnson, solicitor, Crown Solicitor's Office

ORDERS: 1. Application dismissed; 2. Determination under review affirmed

1 The applicant applied to the respondent agency under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (the FOI Act) by letter dated 24 February 2005 for access to certain documents. The material part of the application was expressed as follows (sic):

The documents and or records etc, are to include all internal working documents and all factual material in relation to, NSW Premier Bob Carr and the preparation and finalization of the lease for the assets and business interests of the Sydney Market Authority and to the sale of the assets of Sydney Markets. …

My application relates to factual material and all types of documents and or records etc, that NSW Premiers Department has…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWADT 137
Decision Date: 05/09/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was brought by Mr Cianfrano, seeking access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The respondent was the Director General of the Premier's Department. The primary dispute revolved around whether the requested documents constituted a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the agency's resources, thus justifying their non-disclosure. The case was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The central legal issue before the AAT was whether the requested documents, which Mr Cianfrano sought from the Premier's Department, constituted a substantial and unreasonable diversion of the agency's resources. The tribunal had to consider whether the act of providing the documents would impede the efficient conduct of the agency's business, as stipulated under section 24A(2) of the Act. Additionally, the tribunal needed to balance the public interest in disclosure against the potential impact on the agency's operations.

The AAT assessed the evidence presented by the Premier's Department, which demonstrated that fulfilling the request would indeed require a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. The tribunal found that the documents in question were voluminous and required considerable time and effort to compile, which would significantly impact the department's ability to conduct its business efficiently. Given these findings, the AAT concluded that the decision to deny access to the documents was justified under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application and affirmed the original determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed; 2. 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.

CITATION:	Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Robert Cianfrano RESPONDENT Director General, Premier's Department
FILE NUMBER:	053154
HEARING DATES:	24/08/2005 & 22/11/2005
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/09/2005
DATE OF DECISION:	05/09/2006
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
CATCHWORDS:	access to documents - substantial and unreasonable diversion of agency's resources - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - substantial and unreasonable diversion of agency's resources
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1989 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT)
CASES CITED:	Cianfrano v Director General, New South Wales Treasury [2005] NSWADT 7 Coe and Chief Minister’s Department [2006] ACTAAT 8 Re Timmins and National Media Liaison Service (1986) 9 ALN 196 Re Eastman and Department of Territories and Local Government (1983) 5 ALD 192 Re Carver and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1987) 6 AAR 317 Wright v SECV [1998] VCAT 162 Tillmans Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union and Ors (1979-80) 27 ALR 367 Radicic v Australian Postal Commission (1999) 59 ALD 157; [1999] FCA 0574 Re Borthwick and University of Melbourne (1985) 1 VAR 33 Re Mildenhall and Department of Education, unreptd, VCAT, 9 April 1999 Coulston v Office of Public Prosecutions [2001] VCAT 10 Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 Re SRB and SRC and Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services (1994) 33 ALD 171 Wright v SECV [1998] VCAT 162 Allanson and Queensland Tourist & Travel Corporation [1997] QICmr 20; (1997) 4 QAR 219 Meretfield v Department of Human Services [1998] VCAT 299 Re A and Dept of Human Services, VCAT, unreptd, 4 November 1998 Re Chapman and Victoria Parks, VCAT, unreptd, 6 December 1999 Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 Prasad v Minister for Immigration 65 ALR 549
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT K Richardson of counsel, instructed by A Johnson, solicitor, Crown Solicitor's Office
ORDERS:	1. Application dismissed; 2. Determination under review affirmed