Diehm v Greater Taree City Council - [2010] NSWADT 241

CITATION: Diehm v Greater Taree City Council [2010] NSWADT 241

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Steven Richard Diehm
RESPONDENT
Greater Taree City Council

FILE NUMBER: 093242

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 28 April 2010

DATE OF DECISION:
12 October 2010

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information Act - - business affairs - confidential material - internal working documents - personal affairs

LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1989
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Order 1989
Local Government Act 1993

CASES CITED: McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2005] NSWADT 255
Diamond v Gosford City Council [2008] NSWADT 282
Re Williams and the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (1985) ALD 219
Dawson v The Commissioner, Health Care Complaints Commission [1999] NSWADT 57
News Corporation Ltd v NCSC (1984) 52 ALR 277
Colakovski v Australia Telecommunications Corporation (1999) 29 FCR
Commissioner of Police v PerrinWoods v Chief Executive Officer, State Rail Authority [2002] NSWADT 253
Re Pfizer Pty Ltd and Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1993) 30 ALD 647 at [79]
Vella v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWADT 68
Thomas v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing [2010] NSWADT 143
General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW (2006) 65 NSWLR 502

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
M Grainger,

ORDERS: 1.Vary the decision under review to determine that 30 days from the publication to these reasons Council provide Mr Diehm with copies of the following documents:
1.Copy credit card statements relating to payments for current and previous serving Councillors, General Managers and Directors in the 2008-2009 financial year.
2.All documentation concerning DA’s 96/2009A and 0040/2008D, subject to redaction of information relating to personal affairs of individual persons.
3.Documents 11 and 12 in the schedule of documents.
4.A copy of document 13 as redacted by the Tribunal.
5.A copy of document 14.
6.A copy of document 17.
7.A copy of document 18 as redacted by the Tribunal.
1. Copies of documents 13 and 17 as redacted by the Tribunal are to be provided to the Council only, on a confidential, basis on publication of these reasons.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1 By letter dated 16 June 2009 Mr Diehm applied to the Greater Taree City Council (Council) for access to information in sixteen separate categories under the Freedom of Information Act 1989. This was posted by registered mail on 17 June 2009 and received by Council on 18 June 2009. A letter acknowledging receipt on 18 June 2009 was sent to Mr Diehm on 24 June 2010.

2 No decision having been received, on 10 July 2009 Mr Diehm requested an internal review of his application on the basis of a deemed refusal.

3 On 13 July 2010 Council wrote to him confirming it had been unable to finalise his request in time and advising that Council intended “to proceed to determination.”

4 No determination was made on the internal review request.…

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 Diehm v Greater Taree 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

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: [2010] NSWADT 241
Decision Date: 12 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Diehm v Greater Taree City Council, the applicant, Mr Diehm, sought access to certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The dispute centred on whether certain documents relating to the business affairs of the council were exempt from disclosure due to their confidential nature. The matter was heard in the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether specific internal working documents of the council, as well as credit card statements of council officers, were subject to an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act due to their confidential nature. The council argued that these documents contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could harm the council's operations and the personal affairs of individuals involved.

The court examined the nature of the documents in question and the exemptions provided under the Act. It found that while some information was exempt due to its confidential nature, other documents could be disclosed with appropriate redactions. The court ruled that certain credit card statements and documentation related to development applications could be provided to the applicant, with redactions to protect personal information. Additionally, the court ordered that specific documents listed in the schedule be disclosed in full or in part, as appropriate.

The court's orders included a directive for the council to provide Mr Diehm with specified documents within 30 days of the publication of the reasons. Certain redacted documents were to be shared confidentially with the council only. The decision underscored the balance between transparency and the protection of confidential information in the public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Vary the decision under review to determine that 30 days from the publication to these reasons Council provide Mr Diehm with copies of the following documents:

1.Copy credit card statements relating to payments for current and previous serving Councillors, General Managers and Directors in the 2008-2009 financial year.

2.All documentation concerning DA’s 96/2009A and 0040/2008D, subject to redaction of information relating to personal affairs of individual persons.

3.Documents 11 and 12 in the schedule of documents.

4.A copy of document 13 as redacted by the Tribunal.

5.A copy of document 14.

6.A copy of document 17.

7.A copy of document 18 as redacted by the Tribunal.

1. Copies of documents 13 and 17 as redacted by the Tribunal are to be provided to the Council only, on a confidential, basis on publication of these reasons.

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:	Diehm v Greater Taree City Council [2010] NSWADT 241
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Steven Richard Diehm RESPONDENT Greater Taree City Council
FILE NUMBER:	093242
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	28 April 2010
DATE OF DECISION:	12 October 2010
BEFORE:	Molony P - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Freedom of Information Act - - business affairs - confidential material - internal working documents - personal affairs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Order 1989 Local Government Act 1993
CASES CITED:	McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2005] NSWADT 255 Diamond v Gosford City Council [2008] NSWADT 282 Re Williams and the Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (1985) ALD 219 Dawson v The Commissioner, Health Care Complaints Commission [1999] NSWADT 57 News Corporation Ltd v NCSC (1984) 52 ALR 277 Colakovski v Australia Telecommunications Corporation (1999) 29 FCR Commissioner of Police v PerrinWoods v Chief Executive Officer, State Rail Authority [2002] NSWADT 253 Re Pfizer Pty Ltd and Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1993) 30 ALD 647 at [79] Vella v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWADT 68 Thomas v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming & Racing [2010] NSWADT 143 General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW (2006) 65 NSWLR 502
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT M Grainger,
ORDERS:	1.Vary the decision under review to determine that 30 days from the publication to these reasons Council provide Mr Diehm with copies of the following documents: 1.Copy credit card statements relating to payments for current and previous serving Councillors, General Managers and Directors in the 2008-2009 financial year. 2.All documentation concerning DA’s 96/2009A and 0040/2008D, subject to redaction of information relating to personal affairs of individual persons. 3.Documents 11 and 12 in the schedule of documents. 4.A copy of document 13 as redacted by the Tribunal. 5.A copy of document 14. 6.A copy of document 17. 7.A copy of document 18 as redacted by the Tribunal. 1. Copies of documents 13 and 17 as redacted by the Tribunal are to be provided to the Council only, on a confidential, basis on publication of these reasons.