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

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leda Developments Pty Ltd v Tweed Shire Council [2013] NSWADT 121
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 30 May 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: S Higgins, Deputy President
Decision:
1. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the emails that are item 1 is affirmed.
2. With the exception of the deletions that are the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent, the decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the email that is item 2 is affirmed.
3. The decision of the respondent in regard to the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent as listed in the addressees of the email that is item 2 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information.
4. With the exception of the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3, the decision of the respondent is affirmed.
5. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information.
6. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of person D's email address in item 4 is affirmed. The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining deletions to item 4 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this deleted information.

Catchwords: Government information - public access - names and email addresses of individuals corresponding with the respondent agency
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW repealed)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited: Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR180
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leda Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Tweed Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: R van Rij (Agent for Applicant)
Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123221

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

The applicant, Leda Developments Pty Ltd, seeks review of a decision of the respondent, Tweed Shire Council, made pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), in regard to its application for access to government information held by the respondent.

On 20 October 2011, the applicant, through its solicitor, sought access to the following documents:

'As contained in Annexure A, items 1 to 17, and in particular pertaining to Kings Forest and Cobaki Lakes developments.'

I…

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] NSWADT 121
Decision Date: 30 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leda Developments Pty Ltd sought judicial review of decisions made by Tweed Shire Council under the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). The applicant contested the respondent's redactions of personal information in response to an application for access to documents. The Federal Court was asked to determine whether the respondent was correct in withholding certain personal information.
The central legal issues were whether the redactions of personal information were justified under the provisions of the Information Privacy Act. The court had to consider if the redactions were appropriate in terms of privacy protection and whether they were necessary for the public interest.
The court found that some redactions were justified, particularly those related to personal identifiers like names and email addresses, as these could potentially invade privacy. However, the court determined that other redactions, such as those covering observations and locations, did not sufficiently protect privacy and were not in the public interest. The court ruled that the respondent's decision to withhold some personal information was correct, but it set aside the redactions that did not adequately protect privacy or serve the public interest.
The final orders affirmed parts of the respondent's decisions while setting aside others, granting the applicant access to specific information that was unduly redacted.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. With the exception of the deletions that are the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent, the decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the email that is item 2 is affirmed.

3. The decision of the respondent in regard to the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent as listed in the addressees of the email that is item 2 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information.

4. With the exception of the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3, the decision of the respondent is affirmed.

5. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information.

6. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of person D's email address in item 4 is affirmed. The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining deletions to item 4 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this deleted information.

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] NSWADT 121
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	30 May 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	S Higgins, Deputy President
Decision:	1. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the emails that are item 1 is affirmed. 2. With the exception of the deletions that are the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent, the decision of the respondent in regard to the deleted information in the email that is item 2 is affirmed. 3. The decision of the respondent in regard to the names and email addresses of employees of the respondent as listed in the addressees of the email that is item 2 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information. 4. With the exception of the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3, the decision of the respondent is affirmed. 5. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of the name of person C and the deletions under the heading 'At' and 'observed by' on page one of the attachment to the submission of the letter that is item 3 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this information. 6. The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletion of person D's email address in item 4 is affirmed. The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining deletions to item 4 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision that the applicant be granted access to this deleted information.
Catchwords:	Government information - public access - names and email addresses of individuals corresponding with the respondent agency
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW repealed) Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR180 McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Leda Developments Pty Ltd (Applicant) Tweed Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	R van Rij (Agent for Applicant) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123221