Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lensing v Snowy Valleys Council [2024] NSWCATAD 75 Hearing dates: 10 August 2023, 14 September 2023 Date of orders: 21 March 2024 Decision date: 21 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Respondent’s decision of 17 May 2023 is affirmed.
(2) The Applicant’s application for review is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — administrative review — government information — allegations of improper conduct — personal information not sought — irrelevant information not sought — legal professional privilege — waiver of privilege — conclusive presumption against disclosure
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2018 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Archer Capital 4A Pty Ltd (atf Archer Capital Trust 4A) v Sage Group plc (No 2) [2013] FCA 1098
AWB Ltd v Cole (2006) 152 FCR 382
Balabel v Air India [1988] 1 Ch 317
Choi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 95
Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 86
Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Pratt Holdings (2005) 225 ALR 266
Commissioner of Taxation v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2022] FCA 278
Crewdson v Central Sydney AHS [2002] NSWCA 345
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
GA v The University of Sydney [2009] NSWADT 230
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FCR 185
Kenquist Nominees Pty Ltd v Campbell (No 5) [2018] FCA 853
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Lensing v Snowy Valley Council [2022] NSWLEC 1486
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107
Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 136 FCR 357
Public Service Assn v Premier’s Department [2002] NSWADT 277
Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 108 ALR 163
Texts Cited: None
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Chad Lensing (Applicant)
Snowy Valleys Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
M Bennett (Respondent)
Applicant (self-represented)
Marsdens Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00107076 Publication restriction: None
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
Chad Lensing (the Applicant) owns a property at Lot 12 Bombowlee Ave, Bombowlee (DP 1252902) (the Property), adjacent to the Tumut River. In 2020 the Applicant made a development application, 2020/0228 (the DA), to the Snowy Valleys Council (the Respondent) for approval to develop a two-storey dwelling and separate shed on the Property. The Respondent refused the DA on 27 April 2021 and the Land and Environment Court (LEC) upheld the Respondent’s decision in Lensing v Snowy Valley Council [2022] NSWLEC 1486.
Continue reading Lensing v Snowy Valleys Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lensing v Snowy Valleys Council [2024] NSWCATAD 75
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATAD 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Council was justified in refusing to provide the information. Key issues included whether the information sought was relevant, whether the Applicant was seeking personal information, and whether the Applicant had waived legal professional privilege. The court needed to assess if the Council had correctly applied the statutory framework in withholding the information.
The court held that the information was not sought for the purposes of the Act, and thus the Council was not obliged to provide it. The court found that the Applicant was not seeking personal information and that the relevance of the information was not established. The court also determined that there was no waiver of legal professional privilege. Given the conclusive presumption against disclosure of legal professional privilege, the court affirmed the Council's decision. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.
The court's decision affirmed the Council's refusal to provide the contested information and dismissed the Applicant's application for judicial review. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law, ensuring that the Council's decision was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Respondent’s decision of 17 May 2023 is affirmed.
(2) The Applicant’s application for review is otherwise dismissed.
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.