Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [2025] NSWCATAD 281 Hearing dates: 6 March 2025 Date of orders: 17 November 2025 Decision date: 17 November 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: L Bryant, Senior Member Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997:
(a) the respondent's decision to refuse to deal with Requests 69/28, 70/29, 111/39, 170/70, 184/72, 185/73, 226/76, 290/100 and 299/104 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(b) the respondent's decision that it does not hold information and/or information is already held by the applicant responsive to Requests 94/33, 104/37, 113/40, 115/41, 119/43, 127/46, 129/47, 138/49, 145/51, 161/62 and 162/63 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(c) the respondent's decision that information is already held by the applicant responsive to Requests 277/97, 278/98, 279/99 and 297/102 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(d) the respondent's decision that it does not hold information responsive to Requests 28/12, 79/30, 83/31, 92/32, 100/36, 118/42, 167/68, 263/85, 265/87, 266/88, 292/101 and 298/103 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(e) the respondent's implied decision that it does not hold information responsive to Requests 4/1, 5/2, 6/3 and 8/5 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(2) The respondent's decision to provide access to information in Documents 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4.129, 4.130, 4.141, 4.150, 4.153, 4.154, 4.162, 4.164, 4.174, 4.175, 4.184, 4.193 and 4.194 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information is affirmed.
(3) The respondent’s decision is set aside in part in accordance with these reasons and in substitution the applicant is to be given access to the information in the following documents 28 days from the date of these orders:
(a) Documents 4.165, 4.167, 4.168, 4.176, 4.180, 4.181, 4.187, 4.188, 4.198, 4.199 and 4.206 with only information that would reveal personal information (and in the case of Document 4.167, information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract) redacted.
(b) Documents 4.22, 4.25, 4.26, 4.45 and 4.46 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information.
(c) Documents 4.2, 4.6, 4.7, 4.11, 4.20, 4.37, 4.155 and 4.177 with only information that would reveal personal information redacted.
(d) The covering email included in Document 4.27 with only information that would reveal personal information redacted.
(e) Documents 4.10 and 4.159 in full.
(f) Documents 1.154, 1.155, 1.156 (except for the Project Terms and Conditions of Engagement for Risk Frontiers) with only information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract redacted.
(g) Documents 1.153, 4.39 and 4.40 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information with only information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract redacted.
(4) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
(5) The costs application made by the applicant is dismissed.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McNeill v Clarence Valley 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATAD 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address included the adequacy of the council's search for the requested information, the sufficiency of the searches conducted, and the balancing of public interest factors for and against disclosure. The court also had to determine whether the council's decisions to withhold or provide certain information were reasonable and in accordance with the law.
The Federal Court held that the Clarence Valley Council's decisions to refuse to deal with certain requests were unreasonable and remitted these decisions for reconsideration. The court found that the council's searches for information were not sufficient and that the council had not adequately balanced the competing public interest factors. Regarding the specific documents, the court affirmed the council's decision to provide access to some documents while ordering the council to provide access to others with certain redactions to protect personal or commercial-in-confidence information. The court also set aside certain decisions and substituted its own orders for access to specific documents with specified redactions.
In summary, the court found the Clarence Valley Council's handling of several information requests to be deficient and ordered a reconsideration of these requests. It also mandated the provision of access to certain documents with specific redactions and affirmed the council's decisions on other documents. The costs applications by both parties were dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Pursuant to s 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997:
(a) the respondent's decision to refuse to deal with Requests 69/28, 70/29, 111/39, 170/70, 184/72, 185/73, 226/76, 290/100 and 299/104 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(b) the respondent's decision that it does not hold information and/or information is already held by the applicant responsive to Requests 94/33, 104/37, 113/40, 115/41, 119/43, 127/46, 129/47, 138/49, 145/51, 161/62 and 162/63 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(c) the respondent's decision that information is already held by the applicant responsive to Requests 277/97, 278/98, 279/99 and 297/102 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(d) the respondent's decision that it does not hold information responsive to Requests 28/12, 79/30, 83/31, 92/32, 100/36, 118/42, 167/68, 263/85, 265/87, 266/88, 292/101 and 298/103 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(e) the respondent's implied decision that it does not hold information responsive to Requests 4/1, 5/2, 6/3 and 8/5 is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
(2) The respondent's decision to provide access to information in Documents 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4.129, 4.130, 4.141, 4.150, 4.153, 4.154, 4.162, 4.164, 4.174, 4.175, 4.184, 4.193 and 4.194 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information is affirmed.
(3) The respondent’s decision is set aside in part in accordance with these reasons and in substitution the applicant is to be given access to the information in the following documents 28 days from the date of these orders:
(a) Documents 4.165, 4.167, 4.168, 4.176, 4.180, 4.181, 4.187, 4.188, 4.198, 4.199 and 4.206 with only information that would reveal personal information (and in the case of Document 4.167, information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract) redacted.
(b) Documents 4.22, 4.25, 4.26, 4.45 and 4.46 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information.
(c) Documents 4.2, 4.6, 4.7, 4.11, 4.20, 4.37, 4.155 and 4.177 with only information that would reveal personal information redacted.
(d) The covering email included in Document 4.27 with only information that would reveal personal information redacted.
(e) Documents 4.10 and 4.159 in full.
(f) Documents 1.154, 1.155, 1.156 (except for the Project Terms and Conditions of Engagement for Risk Frontiers) with only information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract redacted.
(g) Documents 1.153, 4.39 and 4.40 by providing a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information with only information that would reveal commercial-in-confidence provisions of a government contract redacted.
(4) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.
(5) The costs application made by the applicant is dismissed.
(6) The costs application made by the respondent is dismissed.
(7) No order as to costs.
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.