Mangleson v Roads and Traffic Authority - [2005] NSWADT 269

CITATION: Mangleson v Roads and Traffic Authority [2005] NSWADT 269

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
James Harry Mangleson
RESPONDENT
Roads and Traffic Authority

FILE NUMBER: 053190

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/28/2005

DATE OF DECISION:
11/25/2005

BEFORE: Higgins S - Judicial Member

APPLICATION: access to documents - law enforcement & public safety - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - law enforcement & public safety - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Freedom of Information Act 1989

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606
Electoral Commissioner, State Electoral Office v McCabe (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 28
Gilling v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [1999] NSWADT 43
Thompson Ardill v Lord Howe Island Board [2003] NSWADT 193

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
C Ludlow, solicitor

ORDERS: The Tribunal orders that the decision of the RTA to refuse the applicant access to the names and addresses of the persons named in the documents the subject of this application is set aside. In substitution thereof a decision that:; (a) the names of those persons on the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 and who are the authors of the documents at attachment “A” and “E” of Mr Youngman’s statement are exempt; and; (b) within 28 days, the applicant be granted access to the whole of the letters dated 26 and 27 May 1999 and a copy of the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 with the names of the persons mentioned in(a) above being deleted.

1 Mr Mangleson (“the applicant”) has made an application seeking review of the decision of a delegate of the respondent agency (“the RTA”) to refuse him access to an unedited version of the list of names of persons who had attended a meeting at Byron Town Hall on 11 May 1999 and the correspondence received by the RTA following that meeting. The applicant had made a request for access to these documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (“the FOI Act”). The applicant made the FOI request on behalf of the Ocean Shores Community Association, which is a community group that had organised a protest against a 1999 proposal for the upgrade of the Pacific Highway from Brunswick Heads to Yelgun. These protests were organised through a sub-committee of the Association, the Highway Action Coalition (“the HAC”). Other community groups were also involved in lobbying or consulting with the RTA in respect of the proposed upgrade. It would appear that some of these groups held a contrary view to that of the Ocean Shores Community Association as to where the road should be located. It would also appear that the differing views gave rise to considerable animosity between them.

2 The edits that had been made to the documents the applicant had requested were the names and addresses…

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 Mangleson v Roads and Traffic Authority 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: [2005] NSWADT 269
Decision Date: 11/25/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mangleson v Roads and Traffic Authority, the applicant sought access to certain documents under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The applicant, Mr Mangleson, had requested access to the names and addresses of individuals who attended a meeting of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) on 11 May 1999, and who were the authors of specific documents produced during that meeting. The RTA refused to provide the requested information, leading Mr Mangleson to lodge an application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the decision.

The central legal issue before the AAT was whether the RTA's refusal to disclose the names and addresses of individuals who were authors of documents and attendees at a meeting was lawful under GIPA. Specifically, the AAT needed to determine if the information was exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act, and if not, whether there were any overriding public interest considerations that justified withholding the information.

The AAT found that the names of the individuals who were authors of the documents and attendees at the meeting were exempt from disclosure under GIPA. However, the AAT held that the remaining information, such as the letters dated 26 and 27 May 1999 and the list of attendees with the names of the authors redacted, was not exempt. The AAT ordered the RTA to provide Mr Mangleson with access to this information within 28 days of the decision. The Tribunal concluded that while there were legitimate reasons for protecting the privacy of the individuals involved, the public interest in transparency and access to government information generally outweighed these considerations in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that the decision of the RTA to refuse the applicant access to the names and addresses of the persons named in the documents the subject of this application is set aside. In substitution thereof a decision that:; (a) the names of those persons on the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 and who are the authors of the documents at attachment “A” and “E” of Mr Youngman’s statement are exempt; and; (b) within 28 days, the applicant be granted access to the whole of the letters dated 26 and 27 May 1999 and a copy of the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 with the names of the persons mentioned in(a) above being deleted.

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.

CITATION:	Mangleson v Roads and Traffic Authority [2005] NSWADT 269
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT James Harry Mangleson RESPONDENT Roads and Traffic Authority
FILE NUMBER:	053190
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10/28/2005
DATE OF DECISION:	11/25/2005
BEFORE:	Higgins S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	access to documents - law enforcement & public safety - access to documents - personal affairs - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - law enforcement & public safety - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - personal affairs
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Freedom of Information Act 1989
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Police v District Court of New South Wales (1993) 31 NSWLR 606 Electoral Commissioner, State Electoral Office v McCabe (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 28 Gilling v General Manager, Hawkesbury City Council [1999] NSWADT 43 Thompson Ardill v Lord Howe Island Board [2003] NSWADT 193
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT C Ludlow, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Tribunal orders that the decision of the RTA to refuse the applicant access to the names and addresses of the persons named in the documents the subject of this application is set aside. In substitution thereof a decision that:; (a) the names of those persons on the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 and who are the authors of the documents at attachment “A” and “E” of Mr Youngman’s statement are exempt; and; (b) within 28 days, the applicant be granted access to the whole of the letters dated 26 and 27 May 1999 and a copy of the list of attendees at the meeting on 11 May 1999 with the names of the persons mentioned in(a) above being deleted.