Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 342
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 13 November 2024
Decision date: 13 November 2024
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: K Robinson, Principal Member
Decision:

(1)   The decision under review is affirmed.

(2) An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – access to government information – freedom of information – unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:

Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137

Colefax v Department of Education and Communities (No. 2) [2013] NSWADT 130

Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63 at [8]; 205 CLR 337

Else v Ministry of Health [2021] NSWCATAD 381

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 67

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAP 310

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2022] NSWCATAD 343

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWCATAP 120

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2023] NSWCATAP 325

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWCATAP 66

Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWCATAD 251

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant)
Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00027706
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. The Applicant, Mr Jeray seeks information held by Blue Mountains City Council about an annual event held within the local government area of the Council.

  2. The Council refused to deal with Mr Jeray’s application for access on the basis that to do so would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of the Council’s resources, relying on s 60(1)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act).

  3. The application for review was made by Mr Jeray on 31 January 2022.

Background

  1. Mr Jeray sought access to the following information in an application for access made on 23 July 2020:

All records concerning the North Face 100/Ultra Trail event.

If there are many records please provide me with a list of records so that I may select the documents required.

  1. In Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 67, the Tribunal ordered:

(1) The decision of the agency on the original application is affirmed.

(2) The matter is remitted to the respondent to consider and decide within 28 days of publication of these reasons whether to provide the applicant with the list of information prepared by it in response to the original application.

  1. Then in Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAP 310 the Appeal Panel set aside that decision of the Tribunal and instead ordered:

(1) Orders 1 and 2 made by the Tribunal on 17 March 2021 are set aside.

(2) In substitution for those orders, pursuant to s 63(3)(d) of the

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jeray v Blue Mountains 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
[2024] NSWCATAD 342
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council involved the applicant, Jeray, seeking review of the respondent's, Blue Mountains City Council's, decision to deny their application for access to certain information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The dispute was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the Council's refusal to provide the information was justified under the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the Council's decision was unreasonable or involved an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources.

The Tribunal found that the Council's decision was reasonable, as the information requested was not public information under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the information was exempt from disclosure as it related to internal policy deliberations and strategic considerations, which were not intended for public release. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the resources required to process the request would have been unreasonable given the volume and complexity of the information. The Tribunal emphasised that the Act does not require public authorities to expend significant resources on requests that do not meet the threshold for disclosure.

As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the Council's decision, finding that it was not unreasonable and did not involve an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources. The Tribunal dispensed with an oral hearing, relying on the written submissions and evidence provided by both parties. The final orders affirmed the Council's decision and concluded the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision under review is affirmed.

(2) An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

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.