Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Eastman v Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District [2022] NSWCATAD 263 Hearing dates: 2 June 2022 Date of orders: 3 November 2022 Decision date: 03 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision under review is affirmed insofar as it concerns documents 1, 2 and 4.
(2) The Tribunal otherwise sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision, within 28 days.
(3) The matter is listed for a case conference at 10:30 am on 5 December 2022.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Government Information – access – sufficiency of search - personal information - confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of an agency's functions - information provided to an agency in confidence – disclosure of information provided to agency in confidence - whether overriding public interest against disclosure.
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Applicants v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2015] NSWCATAD 22
Battin v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 73
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5.
Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Crewdson v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWCA 345
DDT v Charles Sturt University [2017] NSWCATAD 329
Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullett [2002] NSWADTAP 13
DQN v University of Sydney [2019] NSWCATAD 159
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Jenkinson v Department of Education and Communities (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 280.
Mansfield v Department of Family and Community Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 43
McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44
Mizzi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 150
MJ v Department of Education and Commerce [2013] NSWADT 213
MJ v Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWCATAD 12
Raven v The University of Sydney [2015] NSWCATAD 104
Sheehy v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2018] NSWCATAD 73
Shepherd v Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning [1994] QICmr 7, (1994) 1 QAR 464
Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67
Taylor v Destination NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 137
Walker v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCATAD 177
Williams v Department of Industry and Investment (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 192
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Virginia Eastman (Applicant)
Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
Right to Information Coordinator, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00265859 Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
-
This is an application for review of a decision by the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District (“NBMLHD” or “the Respondent”) in response to an access application by Virginia Eastman (“the Applicant”) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”).
Background
-
In her access application dated 20 August 2020 (“the August request”) the Applicant sought:
All…
Continue reading Eastman v Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Eastman v Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District [2022] NSWCATAD 263
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the search for documents was sufficient, whether the documents contained personal information that could be disclosed, and if there was an overriding public interest against disclosing the information. The Tribunal had to determine if the respondent had conducted a thorough enough search for documents and if the information in question was exempt from disclosure under the Act.
In its decision, the Tribunal found that the search for documents was sufficient for certain documents but not for others. The Tribunal concluded that some of the documents contained personal information that was exempt from disclosure under the Act, but this did not extend to all the information sought. Regarding the overriding public interest, the Tribunal found that the respondent had not adequately justified the withholding of certain information. The Tribunal set aside the decision under review in part and remitted the matter for reconsideration, affirming the decision in respect of specific documents.
The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review is affirmed concerning documents 1, 2, and 4. The matter was set aside for reconsideration within 28 days and listed for a case conference on 5 December 2022.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision under review is affirmed insofar as it concerns documents 1, 2 and 4.
(2) The Tribunal otherwise sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision, within 28 days.
(3) The matter is listed for a case conference at 10:30 am on 5 December 2022.
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.