Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [2024] NSWCATAD 382 Hearing dates: 15 October 2024 Date of orders: 16 December 2024 Decision date: 16 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Sullivan, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — administrative review — government information — scope of review —personal information — copyright — reasonable searches
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Amos v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWCATAD 101
Crewdson v Central Sydney AHS [2002] NSWCA 345
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1
OD v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 74
Raven v University of Sydney [2015] NSWCATAD 104
Redfern Legal Centre v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 288
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Craigh McNeill (Applicant)
Clarence Valley Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-Represented)
Local Government Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00268200 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
Mr Craigh McNeill (the Applicant) applied to this Tribunal for an administrative review of the decision of Clarence Valley Council (the Council) dated 8 July 2024 in response to his request for information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act).
-
For the reasons below, the Council’s decision is affirmed.
Background
-
The application to the Council was made by the Applicant on 8 May 2024 (the GIPA Application). The Applicant sought access to information regarding the application by the Council of bushfire relief grant funds and community funds in relation to the development selection process for the “Treelands Drive Community Hub project”.
-
His request (under the heading “What information are you seeking”) was in the following terms:
The lack of any documentation or evidence that Ms. Black actually investigated varying the design contract per the Council’s resolution is a key aspect of concern. As such, confirming whether records exist is crucial for understanding if the General Manager fulfilled her duties in implementing this lawful Council decision.
Under the [GIPA Act], I am requesting access to the following information held by Clarence Valley Council relating to the Treelands Drive Community Hub project (BLERF-0094) for the period of 1 July 2022 to 1 September 2023.
1. Any written documentation, correspondence, notes, emails or other records showing that Ms. Laura Black, the General Manager, or other Council staff investigated or considered “a contract variation with the current design contract for the detailed design of Option B” as per the Council resolution 07.22.290 passed on 13 December 2022.
[Screenshot of Council Resolution – 07.22.290]
2. Specifically, I request:
- Notes, records or documentation prepared by Ms. Black or staff regarding exploring or assessing a contract variation…
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
- [2024] NSWCATAD 382
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the scope of administrative review concerning the council's decision to deny access to the personal information. The court needed to determine whether the council's actions in denying access were lawful and reasonable. This involved assessing the council's compliance with the statutory obligations under the GIPA Act and whether the searches conducted were adequate to locate the requested information. Additionally, the court had to consider the interplay between the council's obligations to provide access to public records and the protection of personal information.
In its reasoning, the court examined the council's processes for handling GIPA requests and the reasonableness of the searches performed. The court found that the searches conducted by the council were reasonable and in line with the requirements of the GIPA Act. The council had implemented appropriate measures to locate the requested information, and any delays were attributed to the nature of the records and the time needed for retrieval. The court concluded that the council had not acted unreasonably in denying access to the personal information, as the searches were conducted diligently and in accordance with the statutory framework.
The final orders of the court dismissed the application, finding that the Clarence Valley Council's decision to deny access to the personal information was lawful and reasonable. The court acknowledged that while the applicant was entitled to access to public records, the council's actions in handling the GIPA request were appropriate and did not breach any statutory obligations. The applicant was not granted the access to the personal information sought, and the council's decision was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
7.
) to the Applicant. The Decision noted, in respect of the searches undertaken, that:
1.
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.