Jackson v Commissioner of Police

[2020] NSWCATAD 168

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Jackson v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 168

Hearing dates:

11 May 2020

Date of orders:

02 July 2020

Decision date:

02 July 2020

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

S Montgomery, Senior Member

Decision:

The Respondent is to pay the Applicants’ costs of the proceedings from 20 March 2020, as discussed in these reasons, in an amount not exceeding $1,000.

Catchwords:

Administrative Law – costs - GIPA Act - Whether special circumstances established

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:

CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 280

Cripps and Another v G & M Dawson Pty Ltd and Another; G & M Dawson Pty Ltd and Another v Cripps and Another [2006] NSWCA 81

Edward Lees Imports Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Fair Trading; Commissioner of Fair Trading v Edward Lees Imports Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 134

Hammond v Ozzy’s Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd t/as Ozzy Car Sales [2015] NSWCATAP 65

Hennessey v Roads and Maritime Services, G B Holdings Pty Limited v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATOD 152

Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority Of New South Wales (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 201

Pascale v City of Parramatta [2017] NSWCATAD 332

Scott v Handley [1999] 58 ALD 373

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Andrew Jackson (First Applicant)
Mary Sutton (Second Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
M McAuliffe (Applicants)

Solicitors:
Lazon Lex Lawyers (Applicants)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2019/00182360

Publication restriction:

Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. This is an application brought by the Applicants for an award of costs pursuant to section 60 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (“the Act”). The application is made following the withdrawal of an application for review of a decision made by the Respondent pursuant to section 9(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”).

2. The substantive proceedings concerned an application to this Tribunal in which the Applicants sought review of a decision of the Respondent in relation to the Applicant's application for access to information under the Government GIPA Act. The access application sought access to information connected with a police search on their property in September 2017. The Respondent identified 12 documents as falling within the scope of the request and released some information to the Applicants but refused access to other information. The Respondent found that the withheld information was subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure. The Respondent also determined that it did not hold the balance of the information that was sought.

3. The Respondent accepted that there were reasonable grounds to believe that it could hold further documents identified in the Applicant's access application and caused further searches to be conducted in an attempt to locate information that the Applicants had identified.

4. Following the hearing in the substantive matter I remitted the matter for reconsideration by…