CITATION: Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: 1st APPLICANT
Michael Leech2nd APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Steve Yang Constructions Pty Ltd
Sydney Water CorporationFILE NUMBER: 103112 HEARING DATES: 6 October 2010 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 6 October 2010 EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE: 6 October 2010 BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information Act - access to documents – business affairs LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429
Hynes v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [2004] NSWADT 135
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSW ADT 107
Robinson v Director General Department of Health [2002] NSWADT 222
Searle Australia Pty Ltd v PIAC (1992) 108 ALR 163REPRESENTATION: 1st APPLICANT
J Dawson, solicitor2nd APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
A Yang, agent
J Mattson, solicitorORDERS: The matter is remitted for re-consideration by Sydney Water pursuant to section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 with the recommendation that documents be released in a redacted form. The information referred to at paragraph [23] of these reasons should be removed from the documents before they are released.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 Mr Leech applied to Sydney Water Corporation (“Sydney Water”) under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (“the FOI Act”) for access to the following documents:
- 1. All documents including file notes, correspondence, letters and emails recording communications between Sydney Water on one hand or any person on its behalf and Steve Yang Constructions Co Pty Limited CAN 057 281 839 ("the company”) or any person on the company's behalf, on the other hand in respect of the period 1 January 2005 to date.
2. All documents appointing or authorising the company to hold itself out as being accredited by Sydney Water.
3. All documents recording any complaints to Sydney Water in respect of the company's performance and/or the provision of inaccurate advice in respect of the period 1 January 2000 to date.
4. All documents including file notes, reports, correspondence and the like giving directions to the company for the period 1 January 2003 to date,
5. Any file notes, reports, correspondence, emails and any other records or communications in respect of an incident on 30 June 2008 at 23 Mount Street Hunters Hill when a sewer line was ruptured.
6. Without limiting the generality of the above, the file relating to the company for the period 1 January 2003 to date.
2 One of the issues that prompted Mr Leech to make the request to Sydney Water was his concern about Sydney Water's processes for accrediting and monitoring the performance of its accredited suppliers.
3 Sydney Water considered that the disclosure of certain documents was likely to concern the business affairs of third parties, and therefore I sought the views of those parties with respect to the release of this information. Steve Yang Constructions (“SYC”) objected to the release of some of the documents that Mr Leech had sought.
4 The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Leech v Sydney Water Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] NSWADT 298
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the corporation was entitled to refuse access to the documents, and if so, on what grounds. The court considered the applicable provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the case law on the subject. The court also considered the corporation's submissions on the effect of the exemption in section 22D(1)(d) of the Act, which exempts from disclosure documents that relate to the commercial interests of a third party. The court found that the exemption did not apply to the documents in question.
The court found that the corporation's decision to deny access to the documents was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law. The court held that the documents were not exempt from disclosure under the Act, and that the corporation was required to release them to Leech. The court also found that the information referred to at paragraph [23] of these reasons should be removed from the documents before they are released, as it was personal information that was not relevant to the matters in question. The court remitted the matter back to the corporation for re-consideration, with the recommendation that the documents be released in a redacted form.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted for re-consideration by Sydney Water pursuant to section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, with the recommendation that documents be released in a redacted form. The court also ordered that the information referred to at paragraph [23] of these reasons should be removed from the documents before they are released.
Orders
Orders of the court
The matter is remitted for re-consideration by Sydney Water pursuant to section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 with the recommendation that documents be released in a redacted form. The information referred to at paragraph [23] of these reasons should be removed from the documents before they are released.
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.