Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Holman v NSW Rural Fire Service [2025] NSWCATAD 54 Hearing dates: 29 January 2024 & On the papers Date of orders: 03 March 2025 Decision date: 03 March 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis is prohibited.
(2) The respondent’s decision dated 11 August 2023, as varied on 1 November 2023, is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Government information – where senior member resigned – reconstitution of Tribunal - alleged improper conduct of the agency – scope of access application – reasonable searches – correct and preferable decision
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW)
State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Concurrence and Referrals) 2020 (2020-667) LW 13 November 2020 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
CLT v Secretary, Department of Education [2022] NSWCATAD 34
ECN v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 153
Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2019] NSWCATAD 34
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Joseph v Kiama Municipal Council (No 3) [2023] NSWCATAD 243
Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Luxford v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 118
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 228 CLR 423
Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292
Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Mizzi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 150
Pedestrian Council of Australia v North Sydney Council [2014] NSWCATAD 80
Ryan v NSW Minister for Planning and Open Spaces [2021] NSWCATAP 221
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 204
Seremetis v Commissioner of Police; Seremetis v Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 317
Shoebridge v The Office of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services [2014] NSWCATAD 189
Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272
Tisdale v Cumberland City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 132
Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Zonnevylle v Department of Justice [2019] NSWCATAP 44
Zonnevylle v NSW Department of Finance & Services [2016] NSWCATAD 47
Texts Cited: None
Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Holman (Applicant)
NSW Rural Fire Service (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
Crown Solicitor(Respondent):
File Number(s): 2023/00258066 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Holman v NSW Rural Fire Service 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
- [2025] NSWCATAD 54
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court first considered whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under the GIPA Act. It found that some documents were exempt because they contained information that was not obtained in confidence or for a particular purpose, and disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The court then considered whether the documents should be disclosed despite the exemptions. It found that the RFS had not conducted reasonable searches to locate relevant documents and had failed to consider whether disclosure was necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court concluded that the RFS had not made the correct and preferable decision and quashed the RFS's decision. However, the court affirmed the RFS's decision to reconstitute the ADT.
The court ordered that the documents lodged by the RFS with the Tribunal on a confidential basis could not be published or disclosed. It also affirmed the RFS's decision to reconstitute the ADT, with variation to include a requirement that the RFS conduct reasonable searches for relevant documents and consider whether disclosure was necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis is prohibited.
(2) The respondent’s decision dated 11 August 2023, as varied on 1 November 2023, 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.