Legal Research
Cases
Griffin v Sydney Trains

Griffin v Sydney Trains

Case [2020] NSWCATAD 234 22 September 2020

Standing

Res Judicata

Discovery & Disclosure

Admissibility of Evidence

Public Interest

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: Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234
Hearing dates: 27 July 2020
Date of orders: 22 September 2020
Decision date: 22 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Christie, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) The deemed decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.
(2) Pursuant to ss64(1) (c) and (d) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 it is ordered that the:
(a) publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal; and
(b) disclosure to the Applicant of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal,
are prohibited.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government Information (Public Access) – whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice any system or procedure for protecting the safety of any person - whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice the security of or any system or procedure for protecting any place, property or vehicle - whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of a criminal act – clauses 2 (d), (e) and (f) of the s14 GIPA Act Table – no conditions to be imposed by the Respondent on the use or further disclosure of the information – balancing of public interest considerations for and against disclosure

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Calderwood v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAD 200
Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 33
Electoral Commissioner State Electoral Office V McCabe 2003 NSWADTAP 28
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Jacobs v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 54
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 148
Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48
Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67
Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No. 2) [2013] NSWADT 232
Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 201

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Griffin (Applicant)
Sydney Trains (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A H Edwards (Respondent)
Solicitors:
McPhee Kelshaw (Applicant)
Maddocks (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00342345, 2019/00389911
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to ss64(1) (c) and (d) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the:

a. publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal; and

b. disclosure to the Applicant of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal,
are prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns the two applications (Request No. 19S-0054 and Request No. 19S-0077) made by the Applicant, Mr Anthony Griffin, to…

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 Griffin v Sydney Trains

Details

AGLC: Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234
Case: [2020] NSWCATAD 234
Decision Date: 22 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffin v Sydney Trains involved a dispute over the refusal of Sydney Trains to disclose certain documents to the Applicant under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The Applicant sought information related to a series of incidents involving falls from railway platforms, which they believed was relevant to their personal safety and the safety of the public. Sydney Trains declined to provide the information, citing potential risks to safety and security under the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the refusal to disclose the information was justified under the specified clauses of the Act. The Court needed to determine if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice systems or procedures for protecting the safety of any person, endanger or prejudice the security of any place, property, or vehicle, or facilitate the commission of a criminal act. The Court also considered the balance of public interest considerations for and against disclosure.

The Court found that the refusal to disclose was justified as the information contained in the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice the safety of persons and security of places. The Court emphasised that the disclosure of such information could potentially lead to unsafe behaviour and compromise the security systems in place. The Court also noted that the confidential nature of the evidence and submissions made during the Tribunal's review further supported the refusal to disclose the information. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of Sydney Trains and prohibited the publication and disclosure of the confidential information to the Applicant.

The final orders of the Court included affirming the deemed decision of Sydney Trains and prohibiting the publication and disclosure of the confidential information to the Applicant, in line with the provisions of the Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The deemed decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.

(2) Pursuant to ss64(1) (c) and (d) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 it is ordered that the:

(a) publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal; and

(b) disclosure to the Applicant of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal,

are 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234

Most Recent Citation

Else v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 59

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Atkin v Department of Communities and Justice
[2025] NSWCATAD 39 Para 90

…ary meaning, i.e. “to cause detriment or disadvantage” or to “impede or derogate from”: Hurst at [60]; see also Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234 at [50].…
Sethi v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice
[2024] NSWCATAD 35

…Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286 Gaudie v Local Court of New South Wales (2013) 235 A Crim R 98; Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234 Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488 Kitson v…
EMC v University of Sydney
[2021] NSWCATAD 234 Para 31

…ion. The Tribunal has held that disclosure under the GIPA Act is in effect a release to the public at large: Danis at [86]; Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234 at [28]; EGR v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 94 at [59].…
Else v Transport for NSW
[2021] NSWCATAD 59 Para 68

…is to make easier. In the context of clause 2(f), to make easier a criminal act by a person minded to carry out such an act: Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234, at [51].…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Calderwood v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
[2020] NSWCATAD 200 Para 46

…Full Federal Court provided the following guidance, as helpfully summarised in Calderwood v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAD 200 at [40]:…
Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment
[2019] NSWCATAD 148 Para 42

…uestion should be granted: Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 at [9] and Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 148 at [64].…
Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education
[2019] NSWCATAD 48 Para 42

…them to reach a decision as to whether or not access to the information in question should be granted: Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 at [9] and Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 148 at [64].…
Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services
[2017] NSWCATAD 201 Para 50

…In relation to clause 2(f) of the s14 GIPA Act Table, in Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 201 the Tribunal, considering whether the release of “fatigue studies and/or engineering assessments” of the Sydney Harbour Bridge would facilitate the commission of a terrorist act, at [39] concluded:…
Smith v Pittwater Council
[2016] NSWCATAD 67 Para 49

…event occurring: Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 per Bowen CJ and Beaumont J at [106] and Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67 at [37]. Also, the term “prejudice” is to be given its ordinary meaning, “to cause detriment or disadvantage” or to “impede or derogate from”: Hurst v Wagg…
Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No 2)
[2013] NSWADT 232 Para 45

…ent that the Respondent merely makes an assertion that the relevant risk ‘could reasonably be expected’: Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No. 2) [2013] NSWADT 232 at [32].…
Jacobs v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
[2013] NSWADT 54 Para 13

…Report for the Respondent to make a new decision (ss57(1), 58(1)(e), 63(1), 93(3) and 101(2) GIPA Act and see Jacobs v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 54 at [26]). A decision to refuse to deal with an access application (including such a decision that is deemed to be made s63 GIPA Act) is a reviewable de…
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council
[2011] NSWADT 307 Para 49

…given its ordinary meaning, “to cause detriment or disadvantage” or to “impede or derogate from”: Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [60].…
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation
[2010] NSWADT 298

…Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Jacobs v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 54 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 148 Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 Smith v Pittwater Council […
Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD)
[2009] NSWADTAP 33 Para 56

…plicant’s submission as to his/her proposed limited use and non-disclosure of the information: Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 33 at [39] to [41].…
Humane Society v National Parks and Wildlife Service
[2000] NSWADT 133

…e citizen, any other citizen who makes the same request should have the same rights: see further Humane Society v National Parks and Wildlife Service [2000] NSWADT 133 at [26-31] … … I consider that the FOI Act does not establish a scheme under which agencies can deal differently as between third party applicants…wh…
Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft
[1986] FCA 39 Para 46

…whether disclosure of the information “could reasonably be expected” to have the nominated effect: Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180. In that case, the Full Federal Court provided the following guidance, as helpfully summarised in Calderwood v Department of Planning, Industry and Environme…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 14)
Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 19)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (repealed) (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 57)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	Griffin v Sydney Trains [2020] NSWCATAD 234
Hearing dates:	27 July 2020
Date of orders:	22 September 2020
Decision date:	22 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	A Christie, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The deemed decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed as the correct and preferable decision. (2) Pursuant to ss64(1) (c) and (d) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 it is ordered that the: (a) publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal; and (b) disclosure to the Applicant of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal, are prohibited.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government Information (Public Access) – whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice any system or procedure for protecting the safety of any person - whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice the security of or any system or procedure for protecting any place, property or vehicle - whether disclosure of government information could reasonably be expected to facilitate the commission of a criminal act – clauses 2 (d), (e) and (f) of the s14 GIPA Act Table – no conditions to be imposed by the Respondent on the use or further disclosure of the information – balancing of public interest considerations for and against disclosure
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Freedom of Information Act 1989 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 Calderwood v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAD 200 Department of Education and Training v GJ (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 33 Electoral Commissioner State Electoral Office V McCabe 2003 NSWADTAP 28 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Jacobs v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 54 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Lemon v Department of Planning and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 148 Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67 Turner v Corrective Services NSW (No. 2) [2013] NSWADT 232 Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 201
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Anthony Griffin (Applicant) Sydney Trains (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: A H Edwards (Respondent) Solicitors: McPhee Kelshaw (Applicant) Maddocks (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/00342345, 2019/00389911
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to ss64(1) (c) and (d) Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the: a. publication of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal; and b. disclosure to the Applicant of confidential evidence given to the Tribunal and of the contents of the confidential document submitted to the Tribunal, are prohibited.