Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd - [2011] QSC 285

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 285

PARTIES:

GREGORY PAUL DAVIS
(applicant)
v
CITY NORTH INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

7598 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 September 2011

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – RIGHT OF ACCESS – GENERALLY –where respondent was incorporated pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to manage procurement of road infrastructure projects – where respondent was wholly owned by the State of Queensland – where the incorporation of the respondent was initiated by the Coordinator-General, whose powers are conferred by the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) – where the incorporation of the respondent required the approval of the Treasurer under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 (Qld) – where applicant was denied access to a document on the ground that the respondent was not subject to the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) – whether respondent is an “agency” within the meaning of s 14 of the Right to Information Act – whether respondent is “established by government under an Act” within the meaning of s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Right to Information Act

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 6, s 36
Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld), s 88
Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 (Qld) (repealed), s 44
Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (repealed), s 9
Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 (Qld), s 5
Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), s 14, s 16

State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld), s 8

Bryce v Curtis (1983) 51 ALR 73 cited
City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Information Commissioner [2010] QCATA 60 cited
Re Cram; Ex parte NSW Colliery Proprietors’ Association Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 117; [1987] HCA 28 cited
Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (unreported, Queensland Court of Appeal No.12315 of 2010, 10 June 2011) cited
Re English and Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1995) 2 QAR 714 cited
Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7 cited
Joint Coal Board v Cameron (1989) 24 FCR 204; [1989] FCA 437 cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 cited
Queensland Law Society Incorporated v Albietz [1996] 2 Qd R 580 cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis SC for the applicant
M D Hinson SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Roberts & Kane for the applicant
Clayton Utz for the respondent

The respondent was incorporated in 2006 pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to manage the procurement of the Airport Link and Northern Busway Projects and associated works. It was later given the additional responsibility of overseeing the contract management of the Airport Roundabout Project. Each of these projects involves the development and construction of road transport infrastructure.

The respondent is wholly-owned…

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 Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd 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: [2011] QSC 285
Decision Date: 30 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd, the applicant sought access to a document held by City North Infrastructure, a company incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The respondent was established to manage procurement of road infrastructure projects and was wholly owned by the State of Queensland. The incorporation of City North Infrastructure was initiated by the Coordinator-General under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) and required the approval of the Treasurer under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 (Qld). The applicant's request for a document was denied on the basis that City North Infrastructure was not subject to the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). The central legal issues were whether City North Infrastructure constituted an “agency” within the meaning of section 14 of the Right to Information Act and whether it was “established by government under an Act” within the meaning of section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the same Act.

The court examined the structure and purpose of City North Infrastructure, considering its incorporation under the Corporations Act, its ownership by the State of Queensland, and the roles of the Coordinator-General and the Treasurer in its establishment. It was noted that while City North Infrastructure was a public entity in terms of its function and ownership, its incorporation under the Corporations Act distinguished it from traditional government agencies. The court held that City North Infrastructure did not qualify as an “agency” or as an entity "established by government under an Act" for the purposes of the Right to Information Act. Consequently, the respondent was not bound by the provisions of the Act, and the applicant's request for information was properly denied.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the application for access to the document was dismissed. The court found that City North Infrastructure, despite its public nature and governmental ties, did not meet the statutory criteria to be considered an agency or an entity established by government under an Act for the purposes of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld). Therefore, the respondent was not obligated to provide the requested document under the provisions of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

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:	Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 285
PARTIES:	GREGORY PAUL DAVIS (applicant) v CITY NORTH INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO:	7598 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 September 2011
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – RIGHT OF ACCESS – GENERALLY –where respondent was incorporated pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to manage procurement of road infrastructure projects – where respondent was wholly owned by the State of Queensland – where the incorporation of the respondent was initiated by the Coordinator-General, whose powers are conferred by the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) – where the incorporation of the respondent required the approval of the Treasurer under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 (Qld) – where applicant was denied access to a document on the ground that the respondent was not subject to the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) – whether respondent is an “agency” within the meaning of s 14 of the Right to Information Act – whether respondent is “established by government under an Act” within the meaning of s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Right to Information Act Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 6, s 36 Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld), s 88 Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 (Qld) (repealed), s 44 Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld) (repealed), s 9 Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 (Qld), s 5 Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld), s 14, s 16 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld), s 8 Bryce v Curtis (1983) 51 ALR 73 cited City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Information Commissioner [2010] QCATA 60 cited Re Cram; Ex parte NSW Colliery Proprietors’ Association Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 117; [1987] HCA 28 cited Davis v City North Infrastructure Pty Ltd (unreported, Queensland Court of Appeal No.12315 of 2010, 10 June 2011) cited Re English and Queensland Law Society Incorporated (1995) 2 QAR 714 cited Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7 cited Joint Coal Board v Cameron (1989) 24 FCR 204; [1989] FCA 437 cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 cited Queensland Law Society Incorporated v Albietz [1996] 2 Qd R 580 cited
COUNSEL:	P J Davis SC for the applicant M D Hinson SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Roberts & Kane for the applicant Clayton Utz for the respondent