Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Kumari v NSW Treasury [2025] NSWCATAD 146 Hearing dates: 16 May 2025 Date of orders: 19 June 2025 Decision date: 19 June 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Riordan, Senior Member Decision: (1) The respondent is to release to the applicant items 2.3, 5.19 (with redaction of a specific individual’s name) and attachment 4 in its confidential bundle of documents.
(2) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
Catchwords: Administrative Law - administrative review – Government information – reasonable searches
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (NSW)
Cases Cited: BDK v Department of Education and Communities [2015] NSWCATAP 129
Crewdson v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2002] NSWCA 345
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
Hewitt v Grabicki 794 F 2d 1373
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury (2006) 228 CLR 423
Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292
Re Resch and Dept of Veterans’ Affairs (1986) 9 ALD 380
Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Zonnevylle v Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning [2019] NSWCATAD 108
Texts Cited: None
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bindu Kumari (Applicant)
NSW Treasury (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Thakur Law Group (Applicant)
NSW Treasury (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00437257 Publication restriction: 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documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (NSW Treasury), are prohibited.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
These proceedings concern a request that Bindu Kumari (the applicant) made to NSW Treasury (the respondent) on 9 August 2024 (the GIPA request) for the release of information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (the NCAT Act).
-
The applicant sought access to the following information:
1. Please provide a date-wise list of complaints received by NSW Treasury officials from Ms Kumari through her NSW Treasury email address, Microsoft Teams, or other mediums, action taken, along with their status, in accordance with the accepted definition of a complaint by NSW Treasury, namely: “A statement that something is unsatisfactory or unacceptable”. In the event that any or all of such communications have been refused consideration as complaints, despite fulfilling the criteria to be accepted as such, please provide the specific legal provisions…
Continue reading Kumari v NSW Treasury
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kumari v NSW Treasury [2025] NSWCATAD 146
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATAD 146
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's refusal to release specific documents to the applicant was justified under the applicable administrative law principles. The court had to consider the scope of the applicant's right to access the documents, the extent of the public interest in disclosure, and the potential impact on the respondent's operations and third parties if the documents were released. The court also needed to determine whether the respondent conducted reasonable searches for the documents and whether any redactions were appropriate.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that while the respondent had conducted reasonable searches for the documents, the applicant had established that certain documents were relevant to the decision-making process and should be disclosed. The court held that the public interest in transparency outweighed the respondent's interest in maintaining confidentiality in this instance. The court ordered the release of specific documents with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of individuals mentioned within them. The court affirmed the respondent's decision in all other respects.
The orders of the court mandated that the respondent release specific documents to the applicant, with certain redactions to protect individual privacy. The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing competing interests in administrative law and affirmed the applicant's right to access relevant documents in the context of administrative review. The court's affirmation of the respondent's decision in all other respects indicates that the primary issue of document disclosure was the focal point of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The respondent is to release to the applicant items 2.3, 5.19 (with redaction of a specific individual’s name) and attachment 4 in its confidential bundle of documents.
(2) The decision under review is otherwise 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.