Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council - [2013] NSWADTAP 50

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2013] NSWADTAP 50
Hearing dates: 22 October 2013
Decision date: 22 October 2013
Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: Judge K P O'Connor, President
P Molony, Judicial Member
P Smith, Non-judicial Member
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Decision under appeal varied, as per para [16] of these reasons.

Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS) - Application for disclosure of communications with council officer - refusal to disclose name of correspondent, and name of correspondent's organisation - Upheld by Tribunal - Appeal - Appeal allowed in respect of name of organisation - Not shown that disclosure of name of organisation would be likely to reveal identity of correspondent: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leda Developments Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Tweed Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: M White, agent, by leave (Appellant)

File Number(s): 139023
Decision under appeal

Citation:

Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2013] NSWADT 121

Date of Decision:

2013-05-30 00:00:00

Before:

General Division

File Number(s):

123221

reasons for decision

The appellant is a company undertaking two major residential development projects in the Tweed Heads area. It applied under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) to the respondent council for access to correspondence between council officers and people concerned about the development projects, and their impact on the area.

The council refused to disclose some of the information sought. The appellant applied to the Tribunal for review. The Tribunal upheld the council's objections in certain respects. The appellant now appeals in relation to one only of the Tribunal's rulings, being the following:

1. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the emails that are item 1 is affirmed.

The council filed a notice in reply to the appeal stating that it wished to make no further submissions, and would submit to the outcome. We have reviewed the submissions it made to the Tribunal at first instance in relation to the deleted information.

Mr White, group adviser to the group of companies of which the appellant company is part, appeared by leave for the appellant. He had with him the project manager, Mr van Rij.

Item 1 contains email correspondence in the period 17 - 21 January 2010 between a person whose name and related particulars has been deleted and the council's director of planning, Mr Vince Connell. The subject matter of item 1 is described by the Tribunal at [33](a) of its reasons. As at January 2010 the development had yet to clear the primary planning approval stage. That has now occurred and the development is in the implementation phase (we were told that 10,000 houses were to be built, and the time frame was around 20 years).

The Tribunal referred to the relevant provisions of GIPA and engaged in the required balancing exercise, and we will not repeat the detail of its approach…

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 Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire 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: [2013] NSWADTAP 50
Decision Date: 22 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leda Developments Pty Ltd appealed against the decision of the Information Privacy and Access Tribunal, which had refused their application for disclosure of communications with a council officer under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in refusing to disclose the name of the correspondent and the correspondent's organisation. Specifically, Leda sought the identity of the person who made the initial request for information and the organisation they represented.

The court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the refusal to disclose the name of the correspondent's organisation. The appeal centred on the argument that the Tribunal did not adequately consider whether the disclosure of the organisation's name would likely reveal the identity of the correspondent. The court found that the Tribunal had not sufficiently addressed the possibility that the disclosure of the organisation's name would not necessarily lead to the identification of the correspondent. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in respect of the refusal to disclose the name of the organisation.

The court's reasoning was based on the need for a balanced approach between the public's right to access information and the protection of individuals' privacy. The Tribunal had not properly weighed these considerations, leading to an error in the decision. The court emphasised that disclosure of the organisation's name might not inherently lead to the identification of the correspondent, especially if the organisation was large or if the correspondent's identity was not readily ascertainable from the organisation's name alone.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the decision under appeal was varied to allow for the disclosure of the name of the organisation, subject to any further considerations of privacy and public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Decision under appeal varied, as per para [16] of these reasons.

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:	Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2013] NSWADTAP 50
Hearing dates:	22 October 2013
Decision date:	22 October 2013
Jurisdiction:	Appeal Panel - Internal
Before:	Judge K P O'Connor, President P Molony, Judicial Member P Smith, Non-judicial Member
Decision:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Decision under appeal varied, as per para [16] of these reasons.
Catchwords:	GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS) - Application for disclosure of communications with council officer - refusal to disclose name of correspondent, and name of correspondent's organisation - Upheld by Tribunal - Appeal - Appeal allowed in respect of name of organisation - Not shown that disclosure of name of organisation would be likely to reveal identity of correspondent: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Leda Developments Pty Ltd (Appellant) Tweed Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	M White, agent, by leave (Appellant)
File Number(s):	139023
Decision under appeal	Citation: Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2013] NSWADT 121 Date of Decision: 2013-05-30 00:00:00 Before: General Division File Number(s): 123221