Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Coppock v Willoughby City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 166 Hearing dates: 2 and 3 September 2020 Date of orders: 15 June 2021 Decision date: 15 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Goodman SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. the decision under review is varied as follows:
a. the applicant is granted access to the first two emails in Document Schedule 2, item 20;
b. such access is to be provided within 28 days;
2. the decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government
information – access application – conclusive presumption against disclosure – legal professional privilege – excluded information
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government
information – access application – public interests in favour of disclosure – public interests
against disclosure– whether overriding public interest against disclosure
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Evidence Act 1995
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
Cases Cited: AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241
Beregi v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 253
Beregi v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAP 185
Broadribb v Medical Council of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATAD 213
CFMEU v De Martin & Gasparini [2017] FCA 856
Colefax v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 75
Collins v Department Finance, Services & Innovation [2018] NSWCATAD 60
Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Forbidden Foods Pty Ltd v Rice Marketing Board of New South Wales [2020] NSWCATAD 18
Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Joye v Beach Petroleum NL (1996) 67 FCR 275
Marchant v Bland Shire Council [2013] NSWADT 303
McMillan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Brady v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 53
Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107
Newcastle City Council v Newcastle East Residents Action Group [2018] NSWCATAP 254
Pertsinidis v Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District [2014] NSWCATAD 130
Re Dingjan: Ex Parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2014] NSWCATAD 37
Sharples v Tweed Shire Council [2015] NSWCATAD 59
Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67
Taylor v Office of Destination NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 195
Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93
University of New South Wales v McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362
Watson v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 139
Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10
Zidar v Department of Justice (No. 3) [2018] NSWCATAD 230
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Stuart Coppock (Applicant)
Also heard: Deputy Secretary, Local Government, Planning and Policy
Willoughby City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
P Boncardo (Applicant)
M Cobb-Clark (Deputy Secretary, Local Government, Planning…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Coppock v Willoughby City 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
- [2021] NSWCATAD 166
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the court were whether certain documents could be disclosed, particularly those that were subject to a conclusive presumption against disclosure. The court had to consider the public interests in favour of disclosure and those against disclosure, and ultimately determine if there was an overriding public interest against disclosure. The applicant argued that the public interest in transparency and accountability outweighed the council's interest in maintaining confidentiality. The council maintained that disclosure would harm its ability to receive frank and candid advice from its legal representatives.
The court found that while there were public interests in favour of disclosure, such as transparency and accountability, the council had a significant interest in maintaining the confidentiality of legal advice. The court acknowledged the importance of legal professional privilege but also recognised the public's right to know about significant decisions affecting their community. After careful consideration, the court decided that the public interest in disclosure did not override the council's interest in confidentiality, affirming the Tribunal's decision in most respects. However, the court did find that two specific emails could be disclosed as they did not contain privileged information. Consequently, the court varied the Tribunal's decision to allow access to these two emails, to be provided within 28 days, while affirming the rest of the decision.
The court's final orders were to vary the decision of the Tribunal by granting the applicant access to the first two emails in Document Schedule 2, item 20, within 28 days. The remainder of the Tribunal's decision was affirmed, maintaining the conclusive presumption against disclosure for the majority of the requested documents.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the decision under review is varied as follows:
a. the applicant is granted access to the first two emails in Document Schedule 2, item 20;
b. such access is to be provided within 28 days;
2. the decision under review is otherwise 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.