Appeal Panel - Internal
CITATION: Franks v Warringah Council (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 53 PARTIES: APPELLANT
Phillip Maurice Franks
RESPONDENT
Warringah CouncilFILE NUMBER: 069025 HEARING DATES: 14/08/2006 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/14/2006
DATE OF DECISION:
09/29/2006BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Montgomery S - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - application of incorrect test - denial of natural justice - fail to allow tender of evidence - misapplication of correct test MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 053389 DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 04/26/2006 LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Evidence Act 1995
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Warringah Council v Franks & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 65
Warringah Council v Franks & Ors [2003] NSWLEC 193
Franks v Warringah Council [2006] NSWADT 124
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456
Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney (1985) 158 CLR 500
AWB Limited v Cole (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478
Secretary to Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] VSCA 117
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Hynes v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [2004] NSWADT 135
Cianfrano v Premier’s Department [2004] NSWADT 255
Director General, Attorney General's Department v Cianfrano (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 26
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Commonwealth of Australia v Dutton (2000) 102 FCR 168
Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service [2003] FCA 53
Talbot v NRMA Ltd [2000] NSWSC 602
R v P [2001] NSWCA 473
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Woodside & anor v Director General, Department of Community Services [2000] NSWADTAP 8
Minister for Community Services v CE (No.1) (CSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 7
Commissioner for Fair Trading, Office of Fair Trading v Cromwell’s Auctioneers & Appraisals Pty Limited (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 25
North Sydney Council v Lygon (1995) 87 LGERA 435
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Ainger v Coffs Harbour City Council [2005] NSWCA 424
Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co [1983] 3 NSWLR 378
Ferns v Commissioner for Corrective Services [2006] NSWADTAP 50
Wilson v Department of Education (unreptd, Smyth DCJ, 21 December 1989)
Hamilton v Environment Protection Authority (unreptd, Ainslie-Wallace DCJ, 5 August 1998)REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
M W Sneddon of counsel instructed by D Trodden, DTA Lawyers
S Pritchard of counsel instructed by V Ingram, Warringah CouncilORDERS: Appeal dismissed
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 The appellant, Mr Franks, applied on 9 August 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (FOI Act) to the respondent agency, Warringah Council, for access to documents regarding -
· illegal seawall construction on Collaroy/Narrabeen beach,
· the Council’s prosecution of Mr Franks in the Land and Environment Court, and
· its pursuit of bankruptcy proceedings against him.
2 Some understanding of the context giving rise to the access…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Franks v Warringah Council (GD) 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
- [2006] NSWADTAP 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the council's decisions were legally sound and if the council had adhered to the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the reasons provided by the council were adequate and whether the correct legal tests were applied. Additionally, the court examined whether the council unfairly denied Franks the opportunity to present evidence and whether the correct legal standards were appropriately applied in evaluating the permit application.
The court found that the council's decisions were legally sound, as the reasons provided were adequate and the correct legal tests were applied. The court held that the council had not denied natural justice, as Franks was given a fair opportunity to present his case. The court also determined that the council did not misapply the correct test in reaching its decisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the council's decisions were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.