Dibb v Transport for NSW - [2022] NSWCATAD 398

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dibb v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 398
Hearing dates: 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 15 December 2022
Decision date: 15 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: C Mulvey, Senior Member
Decision:
The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – government information – access application – unreasonable and substantial diversion of agency’s resources – refuse to deal – ss57, 58 and 60 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:
Cianfrano v Director General, Premier’s Department [2006] NSWADT 137
Commission of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7
Department of Education and Communities (NSW) (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 130
Dibb v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 340 Dibb v Transport for NSW (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 89
Feeney v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 269
Hickey v Secretary, Department of Education [2021] SWADTAP 306
Ruyters v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 223
WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADTAP 58

Texts Cited:
None cited.

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Raymond Dibb (Applicant)
Transport for NSW (Respondent)
Also heard:
Information Commissioner (see s 104(1), Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009)
Representation: Applicant (Self Represented)
R Jeyasingam (Authorised Officer) (Respondent)
Information Commissioner

File Number(s): 2021/00334247
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 22 September 2021, Raymond Dibb (the Applicant) applied to Transport for NSW (“TNSW”), the respondent, under the Government Information (Public) Access Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”) for access to information (“the access application”):

Please refer to attachment titled Description of Information for Which Access is Sought'.
1. Access to the Valuation Reports obtained on behalf of RTA or RMS or TINSW used for determining the acquisition price in relation to the below-listed properties for the proposed Coffs Harbour Bypass.
2. Access to all Town Planning Reports in the possession or control of RTA or RMS or TFNSW in relation to the above-listed properties for the proposed Coffs Harbour Bypass.
3. Access to all documents or settlement sheets that verify the amount paid and the date paid for the 'SP2' zoned land for the following 82 listed properties.
Note 1: Best endeavours have been used to identify the correct title reference for each property as several properties have been realigned and issued new title references.
Note 2: The listed properties are sequenced in order from north to south along the Bypass route so can be identified if the newly aligned properties have title reference conflicts.
Note 3: If some of the properties acquired include portions that are zoned in addition to 'SP2' zoning and cannot be separately itemised, then the amount paid for the complete property is acceptable. (the Requested Information).

The document titled 'Description of Information for Which Access is Sought' requested Information consisting of:

valuation reports for 22 properties,

town planning reports for 22 properties, and

all documents or settlement sheets that verify…

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 Dibb v Transport for NSW

Details

AGLC: Dibb v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 398
Case: [2022] NSWCATAD 398
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dibb v Transport for NSW involved an application for access to government information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The applicant, Dibb, sought access to certain documents held by Transport for NSW. The dispute centred on whether the agency was justified in refusing to provide the requested information due to the substantial diversion of resources it would require. The matter was heard by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which was tasked with determining whether the agency's decision to refuse access was lawful.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the agency's refusal to provide the requested information was justified under sections 57, 58, and 60 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the request was unreasonable or whether the agency would be required to divert substantial resources to locate, retrieve, or produce the information, potentially affecting other operational duties. The court also had to consider whether the applicant had the right to access the information and whether there were any exemptions that applied.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the agency had acted within its statutory powers in refusing to deal with the request. The court held that the request was unreasonable as it would require a substantial diversion of resources, which would impede the agency's ability to perform its core functions. The court found that the agency had demonstrated that it had other pressing priorities and that complying with the request would significantly impact its operational capacity. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification to warrant such a resource allocation. Consequently, the decision to refuse access to the information was affirmed.

The court's final orders affirmed the decision of Transport for NSW to refuse access to the requested information. The court found that the agency's decision was reasonable and within the scope of the statutory provisions, thus upholding the agency's refusal to deal with the application for access to government information.

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:	Dibb v Transport for NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 398
Hearing dates:	28 March 2022
Date of orders:	15 December 2022
Decision date:	15 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	C Mulvey, Senior Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – government information – access application – unreasonable and substantial diversion of agency’s resources – refuse to deal – ss57, 58 and 60 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Cianfrano v Director General, Premier’s Department [2006] NSWADT 137 Commission of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7 Department of Education and Communities (NSW) (No 2) [2013] NSWADT 130 Dibb v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 340 Dibb v Transport for NSW (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAP 89 Feeney v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 269 Hickey v Secretary, Department of Education [2021] SWADTAP 306 Ruyters v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 223 WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADTAP 58
Texts Cited:	None cited.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Raymond Dibb (Applicant) Transport for NSW (Respondent) Also heard: Information Commissioner (see s 104(1), Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009)
Representation:	Applicant (Self Represented) R Jeyasingam (Authorised Officer) (Respondent) Information Commissioner
File Number(s):	2021/00334247
Publication restriction:	Nil