Ireland v Central Coast Council - [2022] NSWCATAD 366

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ireland v Central Coast Council [2022] NSWCATAD 366
Hearing dates: 9 August 2021 & 6 October 2021
Date of orders: 15 November 2022
Decision date: 15 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: K Ransome, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) The decision under review is affirmed in respect of item 1 of the access request of 4 August 2020.
(2) The decision under review is set aside in respect of item 2 of the access request of 4 August 2020 and the matter remitted for reconsideration by the respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - Government Information – whether further information held – adequacy of searches – whether information government information

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 5
Choi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAP 211
Denyer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 160
Miriani v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] NSWADT 187
Mizzi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 150
Redfern Legal Centre v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 288
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 109
Shvetsova v University of New England [2015] NSWCATAD 49
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Bede William Ireland (Applicant)
Central Coast Council (Respondent)
Also heard:
Information Commissioner (see s 104(1), Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009)
Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
M Ball (Respondent)
C Higgins (Information Commissioner)

File Number(s): 2021/00065573
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Bede Ireland has a beneficial interest in land at Springfield on the Central Coast. In these reasons for decision the land is referred to as “No. 70”.
In 2002 Mr Ireland lodged a development application with the Gosford City Council, now the Central Coast Council (the Council), for a raised residential house to be built on No. 70. The development application was refused on the basis that the land is “high hazard” for flooding. Mr Ireland states that for 20 years he has sought details of the rationale for the making of this decision but has not been provided any.
There is a long history of correspondence between Mr Ireland and the Council about the classification of No. 70. There are also applications under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) and its predecessor the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as well as applications to the NSW Ombudsman. Mr Ireland is very firmly of the view that the Council is wrong in its assessment of flood levels within the lot boundary for No. 70. He seeks to understand the basis upon which the decision to refuse the development application was made.
This review application concerns an application made by Mr Ireland to the Council on 4 August 2020 in which he sought access to certain information under the GIPA Act. The Council decided…

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 Ireland v Central Coast 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: [2022] NSWCATAD 366
Decision Date: 15 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ireland brought a judicial review application against Central Coast Council seeking access to documents under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The central issue was whether the Council had adequately searched for and disclosed all relevant documents in response to a public access request. The case was heard and determined in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the Council had fulfilled its obligation to conduct a thorough search for documents responsive to Ireland's request and whether the information withheld was properly classified as government information. This involved interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and determining whether the Council's actions were reasonable and in accordance with the law. The court had to examine the scope of the search conducted, the adequacy of the reasons provided for non-disclosure, and whether the documents withheld met the criteria for being classified as government information.

The court found that while the Council had undertaken a reasonable search, it had not disclosed all relevant documents in response to item 2 of the access request. The court determined that the Council's decision to withhold certain information was not supported by sufficient reasons, and the withheld information did not meet the threshold for being classified as government information. Consequently, the court set aside the Council's decision in respect of item 2 and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration. In respect of item 1, the court found the Council's decision to be valid and affirmed it.

The court's final orders were to affirm the Council's decision in respect of item 1 of the access request and to set aside the decision in respect of item 2, remitting the matter to the Council for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision under review is affirmed in respect of item 1 of the access request of 4 August 2020.

(2) The decision under review is set aside in respect of item 2 of the access request of 4 August 2020 and the matter remitted for reconsideration by the respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ireland v Central Coast Council [2022] NSWCATAD 366
Hearing dates:	9 August 2021 & 6 October 2021
Date of orders:	15 November 2022
Decision date:	15 November 2022
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	K Ransome, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The decision under review is affirmed in respect of item 1 of the access request of 4 August 2020. (2) The decision under review is set aside in respect of item 2 of the access request of 4 August 2020 and the matter remitted for reconsideration by the respondent in accordance with the reasons for this decision.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - Government Information – whether further information held – adequacy of searches – whether information government information
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Camilleri v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 5 Choi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAP 211 Denyer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 160 Miriani v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2005] NSWADT 187 Mizzi v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2013] NSWADT 150 Redfern Legal Centre v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 288 Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2013] NSWADT 109 Shvetsova v University of New England [2015] NSWCATAD 49 Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Bede William Ireland (Applicant) Central Coast Council (Respondent) Also heard: Information Commissioner (see s 104(1), Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-represented) M Ball (Respondent) C Higgins (Information Commissioner)
File Number(s):	2021/00065573
Publication restriction:	Nil