EMF v Cessnock City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 83
Hearing dates: 5 February 2021
Date of orders: 31 March 2021
Decision date: 31 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Starke, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The Tribunal determines to take no further action on the matter.

(2) Under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies the applicant or is likely to lead to the applicant’s identification is prohibited.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Freedom of information — Personal information

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 121

ALZ v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCATAP 51

AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179

APV v Department of Finance and Services [2016] NSWCATAD 168

BKM v Sydney Local Health District [2015] NSWCATAD 87

CBL v Southern Cross University [2018] NSWCATAD 97

CBL v Southern Cross University [2018] NSWCATAP 236

CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300

CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350

Department of Education and Training v MT (2006) 67 NSWLR 237

DRX v City of Canada Bay Council [2020] NSWCATAD 26

DSG v Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 182

EQ v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information) [2016] AATA 785

FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78

GA v Department of Education & Training (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 119

GR v Department of Housing [2003] NSWADT 268

Jackson v The University of New South Wales [2018] NSWCATAD 12

HW v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police and Anor [2003] NSWADT 214

JD v NSW Medical Board (No. 2) [2006] NSWADT 345

KJ v Wentworth Area Health Service [2004] NSWADT 84

March v Stramare (E and MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506

MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248

NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263

RD v Department of Education and Training [2005] NSWADT 195

SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74

Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192

WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: EMF (Applicant)
Cessnock City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Respondent (Self Represented)
File Number(s): 2020/00276345
Publication restriction: The disclosure of the name of the applicant is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. The applicant applied to the Tribunal under s 55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (PPIP Act) for an administrative review of the conduct of Cessnock City Council (the Council) which had been the subject of the applicant’s request under s 53 of the PPIP Act for an internal review of the Council’s decision that found his privacy complaint was unsubstantiated.

  2. The applicant’s original complaint about…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read EMF v Cessnock 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
[2021] NSWCATAD 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, EMF, sought a review of a decision by Cessnock City Council to deny their request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The dispute was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant's request sought the release of documents that, in their view, would assist them in pursuing a personal grievance against the Council. The Council argued that the information sought was not relevant to the statutory purposes of the Act and was personal information exempt from disclosure.

The key legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the information sought by EMF was relevant to the purposes of the Act and whether it constituted personal information exempt from disclosure. The Tribunal considered the statutory definitions of "personal information" and "relevant" and whether the exemption applied. The Tribunal concluded that the information was not relevant to the statutory purposes and that it did constitute personal information. The Tribunal found that the exemption applied and therefore the Council was not required to disclose the information.

The Tribunal determined that no further action would be taken on the matter and ordered that the disclosure of EMF's name or any material that identifies or is likely to lead to EMF's identification is prohibited. This was done to protect the privacy of the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal's decision emphasised the importance of the statutory exemptions in protecting personal information and ensuring that the FOI process serves its intended purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Tribunal determines to take no further action on the matter.

(2) Under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies the applicant or is likely to lead to the applicant’s identification is prohibited.

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.