Hattch v Dubbo City Council - [2007] NSWADT 4

CITATION: Hattch v Dubbo City Council [2007] NSWADT 4

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Jennifer Robin Hattch
RESPONDENT
Dubbo City Council

FILE NUMBER: 063299

HEARING DATES: 18/12/2006

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 18 December 2006

DATE OF DECISION:
9 January 2007

CATCHWORDS: access to documents - operations of agencies - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - operations of agencies

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1989

CASES CITED: Cianfrano v Director General, NSW Treasury [2005] NSWADT 7
Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullet & anor [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Gales Holdings Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2005] NSWADT 168
McGuinness v Bathurst Regional Council [2005] NSWADT 152
Re James and Australian National University (1984) 6 ALD 687
Re Marr and Telstra Corporation Ltd (AAT Matter No P93/337, 29 October 1993)
Re Thies and Department of Aviation (1986) 9 ALD 454 Re Wilson and Australian Postal Corporation (AAT Matter No N93/800, 11 July 1994)
Toomer and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [2003] AATA 1301

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
N Wilson, solicitor

ORDERS: The decision under review is affirmed

1 This matter involves an application by Jennifer Hattch to review a decision of a delegate of Dubbo City Council (‘the Council’) refusing a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (‘the FOI Act’) to provide copies of certain documents.

Background

2 By application dated 7 February 2006, Ms Hattch applied for access to documents concerning:

“3 grievances lodged with Dubbo City Council ie Greenhalgh & Christmas / Fiona Ross / Ray Tickle. I request all letters/memos/file notes/reports & emails”.

3 On 8 February 2006, Ms Hattch was permitted to inspect all the relevant documents, and requested copies of documents that she identified with yellow “post it” notes. On 28 February 2006, Grahame Marchant, the Director of Administrative and Financial Services for the Council and its FOI Officer, decided to provide copies of some documents but refused copies of others on the ground that they were exempt documents under the FOI Act. By letter dated 22 March 2006, Ms Hattch requested an internal review of this decision. On 3 April 2006, the Council’s General Manager confirmed the decision. By letter dated 25 April 2006, Ms Hattch lodged a complaint with the NSW Ombudsman. After investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman suggested that the Council should redetermine its decision.

4 On 25 July 2006, Mr Marchant redetermined the decision and provided Ms Hattch with copies of additional documents. However, he determined that other documents comprising (1) “Records of meetings with subjects of the three grievances”, and (2) “Memos to the subject of the three grievances advising them of the outcome of the investigations” were exempt documents pursuant to cl 16(a)(iii) of Sch 1 of the FOI Act:

“My reasons for this redetermination are that I consider that a record of what was said by individuals during an interview regarding a grievance lodged against them should not be…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hattch v Dubbo 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: [2007] NSWADT 4
Decision Date: 9 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hattch brought an application for access to certain documents held by the Dubbo City Council under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). The Council refused access to the documents, prompting Hattch to seek review of the decision by the Federal Court. The court was required to determine whether the Council's decision was lawful and whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Act. The court considered the scope of the exemptions under the Act, the public interest considerations that apply to the disclosure of government documents, and whether the Council had correctly applied the law in reaching its decision.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the content of the documents in question and the reasons provided by the Council for refusing access. The court found that the Council had correctly applied the exemptions under the Act and that the documents were exempt from disclosure. The court noted that the documents contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could have a detrimental impact on the Council's operations and the privacy of individuals. The court also found that the Council had provided adequate reasons for its decision and had not acted unreasonably or capriciously. The court concluded that the Council's decision was lawful and affirmed the decision under review.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision under review was affirmed and the application for review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed

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.

CITATION:	Hattch v Dubbo City Council [2007] NSWADT 4
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Jennifer Robin Hattch RESPONDENT Dubbo City Council
FILE NUMBER:	063299
HEARING DATES:	18/12/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	18 December 2006
DATE OF DECISION:	9 January 2007
CATCHWORDS:	access to documents - operations of agencies - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - operations of agencies
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Cianfrano v Director General, NSW Treasury [2005] NSWADT 7 Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullet & anor [2002] NSWADTAP 13 Gales Holdings Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2005] NSWADT 168 McGuinness v Bathurst Regional Council [2005] NSWADT 152 Re James and Australian National University (1984) 6 ALD 687 Re Marr and Telstra Corporation Ltd (AAT Matter No P93/337, 29 October 1993) Re Thies and Department of Aviation (1986) 9 ALD 454 Re Wilson and Australian Postal Corporation (AAT Matter No N93/800, 11 July 1994) Toomer and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [2003] AATA 1301
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT N Wilson, solicitor
ORDERS:	The decision under review is affirmed