Legal Research
Cases
Gazecki v Mid Coast Council

Gazecki v Mid Coast Council

Case [2025] NSWCATAD 275 12 November 2025

Administrative Review

Access to Information

Public Interest Considerations

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gazecki v Mid Coast Council [2025] NSWCATAD 275
Hearing dates: 28 August 2025
Date of orders: 12 November 2025
Decision date: 12 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: R Block, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 64 of the CAT Act, the Tribunal orders that no record of the confidential session, nor of the Confidential Bundle, is to be disclosed or released to either the Applicant or to the public.
(2) Noting that some of the material in Item 1 was released to the Applicant prior to the hearing, the decision under review is otherwise affirmed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - administrative review - government information - access application - enforceable right to access government information - public interest considerations for disclosure - public interest considerations against disclosure - legal professional privilege

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AEZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 90
Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group PLS (No 2) [2013]
Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Bailey v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2023] NSWCATAP 103
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri [2013] NSWADT 80
Commissioner of Policy, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68
Douglas v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2022] NSWCATAD 152
Fahey v NSW Officer of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [2012] NSWADT 181
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118
Snape v Commissioner of Police No 2 [2022] NSWCATAP 244
Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Gazecki (Applicant)
Mid Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-Represented)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00263488
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the material filed by the Respondent on a confidential basis, the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49 is not to be released to either the Applicant or to the public.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr John Gazecki (the Applicant) seeks access to information held by Mid Coast Council (the Respondent) in relation to his interactions and dispute with the Respondent regarding the dams on his rural property located in the mid north coast region (the Property).
This matter has a lengthy history. On 15 December 2023 and 2 May 2024 the Applicant made requests to the Respondent seeking access to information per the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). The Applicant also filed a Notice to Produce on 17 January 2025 in relation to proceedings on foot in the Land and Environment Court…

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.

Continue reading Gazecki v Mid Coast Council

Details

AGLC: Gazecki v Mid Coast Council [2025] NSWCATAD 275
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 275
Decision Date: 12 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gazecki v Mid Coast Council involved the applicant, Gazecki, seeking access to certain documents held by the respondent, Mid Coast Council, under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (NSW). The dispute centred around whether the Council was justified in withholding certain documents on the basis of legal professional privilege. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the documents in question were protected by legal professional privilege, and if so, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the communications. The court had to balance the enforceable right to access government information against the public interest considerations that could justify withholding such information.

The court held that the Council was correct in refusing to release 23 of the 39 documents that were originally sought by the applicant. The court found that the documents were protected by legal professional privilege and that the public interest considerations against disclosure were stronger than those in favour of disclosure. The court determined that the remaining 16 documents should be disclosed to the applicant, as they were not protected by legal professional privilege.

The final orders of the court affirmed the Council's decision in relation to the 23 documents and required the Council to disclose the remaining 16 documents to the applicant. The applicant's appeal against the decision was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

) was correct and preferable and should be affirmed in relation to the remaining 16 items (of the original 39 items) pressed by the Applicant.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Gazecki v Mid Coast Council [2025] NSWCATAD 275

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Douglas v Commissioner of Police
[2022] NSWCATAD 152 Para 106

…fied by the Respondent in their submissions and during the hearing. This is supported by the approach taken in Douglas v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2022] NSWCATAD 152.…
Taylor v Destination NSW
[2017] NSWCATAD 272 Para 70

…public interest disclosure imperative established per s 13 of the Act, against any applicable s 14 Table matters, and as per Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272 ( Taylor ) at [17], the balance is always weighted in favour of disclosure.…
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities
[2016] NSWCATAD 118 Para 72

…ng the question of whether the information in issue is confidential, a number of principles apply ( Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118 ( Luxford ).…
Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group PLC (No 2)
[2013] FCA 1098 Para 59

…In Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group PLS (No 2) [2013] FCA 1098 at [10], Wigney J stated that “A communication or document will be privileged if it was made or brought into existence for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice (the advice limb), o…
AEZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
[2013] NSWADT 90 Para 79

…t of harassment and intimidation should their identity and statements be revealed to the Applicant. In AEZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 90 at [85] the Tribunal held that “harm should be confined to a real and substantial detrimental effect on a person, rather than their business interest…
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW)
[2013] NSWADT 80 Para 71

…In Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri [2013] NSWADT 80, the Appeal Panel stated that the question as to whether information is “confidential information” is to “be examined, primarily at least, by reference to the agency’s evidence as to the conditions under which it conducts the servi…
Fahey v NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing
[2012] NSWADT 181 Para 77

…disclose the identity of a person who makes false complaints, and that he is a victim of such. In Fahey v NSW Officer of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [2012] NSWADT 181 at [30] it is noted that “there is a public interest in disclosing the identity of persons who make false complaints. Careful distinction should be mad…
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation
[2010] NSWADT 298 Para 68

…In Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 the Tribunal referred to a number of cases which had considered the term “could reasonably be expected to” and stated at [25] “The test to be applied is an objective one, approached from the view point of the reasonable decision-maker: Neary v State Rail Authorit…
Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft
[1986] FCA 39 Para 67

…The words “could reasonably be expected to” are to be given their ordinary meaning ( Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180). In that case, Bowen CJ and Beaumont J explained, at [190], that the words “... require a judgment to be made by the decision-maker as to whether it is reasonable, as dist…
Snape v Commissioner of Police No 2
[2022] NSWCATAP 244 Para 70

…As per Snape v Commissioner of Police No 2 [2022] NSWCATAP 244 ( Snape ), the Tribunal must balance the public interest disclosure imperative established per s 13 of the Act, against any applicable s 14 Table matters, and as per Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272 ( Taylor ) at [17], the balance is always wei…
[2023] NSWCATAP 103
[2023] NSWCATAP 103 Para 27

…In Bailey v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2023] NSWCATAP 103 ( Bailey ), it was found that a failure by the Tribunal to make express findings on any of the individual matters put forward by an appellant in support of disclosure, and the failure to attribute them weight, could render the Tribunal’s reasons inadequate.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 7

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 15)
Environmental and Planning Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 7)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 57)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 81)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Gazecki v Mid Coast Council [2025] NSWCATAD 275
Hearing dates:	28 August 2025
Date of orders:	12 November 2025
Decision date:	12 November 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	R Block, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 64 of the CAT Act, the Tribunal orders that no record of the confidential session, nor of the Confidential Bundle, is to be disclosed or released to either the Applicant or to the public. (2) Noting that some of the material in Item 1 was released to the Applicant prior to the hearing, the decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - administrative review - government information - access application - enforceable right to access government information - public interest considerations for disclosure - public interest considerations against disclosure - legal professional privilege
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AEZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 90 Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd as trustee for the Archer Capital Trust 4A v Sage Group PLS (No 2) [2013] Attorney-General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 Bailey v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2023] NSWCATAP 103 Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri [2013] NSWADT 80 Commissioner of Policy, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68 Douglas v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2022] NSWCATAD 152 Fahey v NSW Officer of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [2012] NSWADT 181 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118 Snape v Commissioner of Police No 2 [2022] NSWCATAP 244 Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	John Gazecki (Applicant) Mid Coast Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-Represented) Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00263488
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the material filed by the Respondent on a confidential basis, the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49 is not to be released to either the Applicant or to the public.