Coote v Blacktown City Council - [2021] NSWCATAD 160

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Coote v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 160
Hearing dates: 1 April 2021
Date of orders: 7 June 2021
Decision date: 07 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: L Pearson, Principal Member
Decision:
The decision under review is affirmed

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – government information – access application – complaint made to Council – access to name and details of complainant- whether overriding public interest against disclosure

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Crimes Act 1900
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Health Records and Information privacy Act 2002
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Newcastle City Council v Newcastle East Residents Action Group [2018] NSWCATAP 254
Stiller v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 173
Transport NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Coote (Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
Blacktown City Council, Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00004180
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure to the applicant or the public of the un-redacted material provided by the respondent is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 11 September 2020 the applicant Peter Coote applied to Blacktown City Council (the Council) under the Government Information (Public) Access Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) for access to information:

Complaint by unknown that my dog Blanca (see attached) attacked and pushed over unknown person outside 10 [xxx] on 3 Sep 2020 at 4.30pm. Blacktown Council ranger attended 10 Sep 2020 at 2.30pm. I want person’s name who made this false complaint and the written complaint itself.

On 2 October 2020 the Council’s Right to Information Officer provided a three page document with redactions, stating that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of personal information including the complainant’s name and address, and information that would identify an individual.
Mr Coote requested review by the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC). On 24 December 2020 the IPC concluded that the Council decision to release the information in part and withhold the name of the complainant and any personal information under s 58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act was justified, and made recommendations under s 95 of the GIPA Act for guidance for future notices of decision.
On 6 January 2021 Mr Coote applied to the Tribunal under s 100 of the GIPA Act for administrative review of the decision.
The task of the Tribunal on this review is to determine, having regard to the material before it and the applicable law, whether the decision to refuse access to the information under s 58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure…

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.

Continue reading Coote v Blacktown City Council

Details

AGLC: Coote v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 160
Case: [2021] NSWCATAD 160
Decision Date: 07 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Mr. Coote and Blacktown City Council was brought before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Mr. Coote sought access to government information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). He specifically requested the name and details of a complainant who had made a complaint to the Council. The Council refused the application, citing an overriding public interest in withholding the information.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the complainant's information outweighed the public interest in transparency and accountability. The court had to balance the privacy rights of the complainant against the right of the public to access information held by public authorities. The statutory provision in question required the court to consider the public interest factors specified in the legislation and determine whether disclosure of the information was necessary in the interests of justice, good administration, or the protection of a person's privacy.

The court held that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the complainant's information was significant and outweighed any public interest in its disclosure. The protection of an individual's privacy was deemed to be a critical public interest factor, especially given the potential for harm to the complainant if their identity was disclosed. The court also considered the lack of any overriding public interest in disclosing the information in this instance. Consequently, the decision by the Council to refuse the application was affirmed, upholding the protection of the complainant's privacy.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Coote v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 160
Hearing dates:	1 April 2021
Date of orders:	7 June 2021
Decision date:	07 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	L Pearson, Principal Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – government information – access application – complaint made to Council – access to name and details of complainant- whether overriding public interest against disclosure
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Crimes Act 1900 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Health Records and Information privacy Act 2002 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Newcastle City Council v Newcastle East Residents Action Group [2018] NSWCATAP 254 Stiller v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 173 Transport NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Coote (Applicant) Blacktown City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Blacktown City Council, Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2021/00004180
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure to the applicant or the public of the un-redacted material provided by the respondent is prohibited.