Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2019] NSWCATAD 34 Hearing dates: 7 August 2018; 5 September 2018 Date of orders: 28 February 2019 Decision date: 28 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Tribunal sets aside the administratively reviewable decision and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision and the recommendations at 56 and 57 above, within 28 days.
(2) Matter is listed for directions on 8 April 2019 at 12pm.Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - GIPA Act – Government Information – access – record keeping – relevance - sufficiency of searches. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Archives Act 1960
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Local Government Act 1993
Roads Act 1993
State Records Act 1998
The General Records Disposal Schedule for Local Government in NSW 1988Cases Cited: Beesly v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 52
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 5
Cianfrano v Department of Commerce (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Curtin v Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56
Hula v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 153
Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Public Service Assn v Premier’s Department [2002] NSWADT 277
Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 123Texts Cited: C Hurley, “From dustbins to disk-drives: a survey of archives legislation in Australia”. In S McKemmish & M Piggott, (Eds) “The Records Continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years” (1994), Australia: Ancora Press
S Mowbray and S McCausland, “Archives and Local Government-the ASA NSW Branch Local Government Archives project” (1992) presented at the ASA (Australian Society of Archivists) National Conference at Wagga Wagga.Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Fisher (Applicant)
Goulburn Mulwaree Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Hall (Respondent)
J Fisher (Self Represented)(Applicant)
RGS Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00042068 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
On the Federal Highway between Goulburn and Collector in New South Wales, there is a right hand turn onto Taradale Road, which runs between the Federal Highway and Currawang Road to the south east for close to 8km. The Applicant’s property, Taradale, is located about half way down Taradale Road. The Applicant’s family, the Fishers, have owned land there for more than a century.
-
Municipal responsibility for Taradale Road has shifted with recent council amalgamations. The 2004 amalgamation of Goulburn City Council and Mulwaree Shire Council and the 2016 amalgamation of Queanbeyan and Palerang Councils have created some confusion as to which local government entity was, throughout the years, responsible for record keeping, surveys, upkeep and maintenance of Taradale Road.
-
On 10 February 2017 John Fisher (Applicant) sought access to the following information from Goulburn Mulwaree Council (Respondent), pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] NSWCATAD 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the Council's searches for records were sufficient and whether the records in question were relevant to Fisher's request. Fisher argued that the Council's searches were inadequate and that the Council had not considered whether the withheld records were relevant to his request. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that its searches were thorough and that the records were not relevant to the request. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the Council had met its obligations under the GIPA Act.
The Tribunal found that the Council had not adequately justified the sufficiency of its searches and had failed to consider whether the records were relevant to Fisher's request. It was noted that the Council had not provided detailed records of its searches or explained why it believed the searches were sufficient. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Council had not adequately considered whether the withheld records were relevant, as it had not provided a clear explanation of the connection between the records and Fisher's request. The Tribunal concluded that the Council's decision was flawed and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Tribunal also recommended that the Council improve its record-keeping and review processes to ensure compliance with the GIPA Act.
The Tribunal set aside the Council's decision and directed that the matter be reconsidered within 28 days. The Tribunal also listed the matter for directions on 8 April 2019 at 12pm. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of thorough record-keeping and careful consideration of relevance when responding to GIPA requests.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Tribunal sets aside the administratively reviewable decision and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision and the recommendations at 56 and 57 above, within 28 days.
(2) Matter is listed for directions on 8 April 2019 at 12pm.
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.