Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Daniels v NSW State Emergency Service [2024] NSWCATAD 118 Hearing dates: 28 June 2023 Date of orders: 7 May 2024 Decision date: 07 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: P French, Senior Member Decision: (1) Insofar as the application applies for review of the Agency’s access decisions in relation to the information identified in the ‘Schedule of Emails’ it is dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it.
(2) The Agency’s decision that it does not hold information that is responsive to item 2(b) of the remitted access application is affirmed.
(3) The Agency’s decisions to refuse access to the information identified at item 1(a) to (i) of the Schedule to the Notice of Decision is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) – access request – scope of remitted request – whether information is held by the agency – whether reasonable searches were conducted for information responsive to the access request – whether there are overriding public interest considerations that justify refusal of access to certain information – prejudice the supply to the agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of the agency’s functions – reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of government or an agency – prejudice the conduct, effectiveness or integrity of an audit, test, investigation or review conducted by or on behalf of an agency by revealing its purpose, conduct or results – reveal an individual’s personal information – contravene and information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Act 1998 or a Health Privacy Principle under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), 9, 55, 63, 65
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), s 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 55, 57, 53, 58, 60, 80, 100, 105, Schedule 4 clause 4
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), s 18
State Emergency Services Act 1989 (NSW), s 7, 8
Cases Cited: Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
CLT v Secretary, Department of Education [2022] NSWCATAD 34
Collins v Department of Finance, Services, and Innovation [2018] NSWCATAD 60
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Davis v Secretary, Department of Education [2022] NSWCATAD 55
Director General, Department of Education and Training v Mullett [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Fire Brigade Employees’ Union v Fire and Rescue NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 113
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Johnson v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 23
Klaric v Commissioner for Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118
McKinnin v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Daniels v NSW State Emergency Service 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
- [2024] NSWCATAD 118
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the SES’s decisions, whether the SES held information responsive to Mr. Daniels’s remitted request, and whether the SES had conducted reasonable searches for the information. Additionally, the court had to determine if the SES’s refusal to provide access to certain information was justified by overriding public interest considerations, as specified in the relevant legislation.
The Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the SES’s access decisions in relation to the information identified in the 'Schedule of Emails'. It affirmed the SES’s decision that it did not hold information responsive to item 2(b) of the remitted access application. The Tribunal also upheld the SES’s decisions to refuse access to the information identified at items 1(a) to (i) of the Schedule to the Notice of Decision, finding that the SES had conducted reasonable searches and that the overriding public interest considerations justified the refusal of access.
The Tribunal dismissed the application insofar as it sought review of the SES’s access decisions in relation to the information identified in the 'Schedule of Emails'. It affirmed the SES’s decisions regarding the information identified in items 1(a) to (i) of the Schedule to the Notice of Decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Insofar as the application applies for review of the Agency’s access decisions in relation to the information identified in the ‘Schedule of Emails’ it is dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it.
(2) The Agency’s decision that it does not hold information that is responsive to item 2(b) of the remitted access application is affirmed.
(3) The Agency’s decisions to refuse access to the information identified at item 1(a) to (i) of the Schedule to the Notice of Decision 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.