Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Moran v Shellharbour City Council [2011] NSWADT 241 Hearing dates: 08/12/2010 and 09/02/2011 Decision date: 19 October 2011 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Higgins, Deputy President Decision: 1.With the exception of the deletions noted below, the decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009 Feasibility Report, the Annual Programs and the Monthly Reports is affirmed.
2.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009 Feasibility Report concerning the identity of the three feasibility options and the general description of those options as set out in the Executive Summary of the Report are set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicant access to the identity of the three feasibility options in the Table of Contents and otherwise and also grant access to the general description of these options as contained in the Executive Summary in accordance with paragraph 98 of these reasons for decision.
3.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 Annual Programs relating to the 2009 Feasibility Report is set aside under section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons for decision.
4.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the March 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports as set out in paragraphs 101 and 102 of these reasons for decision, and the deletions in the minutes of meeting of the Committee attached to the April 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports as set out in paragraph 105 of these reasons for decision is set aside under section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons for decision.
Catchwords: Access to documents concerning a development project of the agency that was being conducted by another person on behalf of the agency - applicant granted access to documents subject to deletions - whether deletions were exempt under the business affairs, internal working or the financial and property interests of an agency had a commercial value or concerned the business, commercial and financial affairs of an agency or another person - public interest Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (repealed)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009Cases Cited: Department of Community Services v Latham [2000] NSWADTAP 21
General Manager, WorkCover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW (2006) 65 NSWLR 502; [2006] NSWCA 84
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2010] NSWADT 158
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107
Re Angel and Department of Arts, Heritage & Environment (1985) 9 ALD 113
Re Cannon and Australian Quality Egg Farms Ltd (1994) 1 QAR 491
Searle Australia Pty Ltd v Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1992) 36 FCR 111; 16 AAR 28; 108 ALR 163
Watt v Forests NSW [2007] NSWADT 197Category: Principal judgment Parties: Susan Lorraine Moran (Applicant)
Shellharbour City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
Continue reading Moran v Shellharbour City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Moran v Shellharbour City Council [2011] NSWADT 241
- Case
- [2011] NSWADT 241
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the deletions made by the council were justified under the relevant exemptions and whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the potential harm of releasing the information. Specifically, the court examined the identity of the three feasibility options and their general descriptions as stated in the Executive Summary of the 2009 Feasibility Report, as well as related information in the Annual Programs and Monthly Reports. The court also had to consider if the council's decision to redact certain information was appropriate and whether it complied with the statutory requirements and principles of transparency and openness.
After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the court found that the deletions in the Executive Summary of the 2009 Feasibility Report were not justified, as the information did not concern the business, commercial, or financial affairs of the council or another person and the public interest in disclosure outweighed the potential harm. The court also concluded that the deletions in the Annual Programs and Monthly Reports concerning the 2009 Feasibility Report needed reconsideration in light of the court's findings. Furthermore, the court determined that the deletions in the Monthly Reports and the minutes of meetings attached to these reports should also be reconsidered. The court's decision affirmed most of the council's decision but required specific parts to be set aside and reconsidered in accordance with the court's reasons.
The court ordered that the deletions in the 2009 Feasibility Report concerning the identity of the three feasibility options and their general description in the Executive Summary be set aside, granting the applicant access to this information. The deletions in the Annual Programs and Monthly Reports relating to the 2009 Feasibility Report were also set aside for reconsideration. Additionally, the deletions in the March 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports, as well as the minutes of meetings attached to the April 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports, were set aside for reconsideration. The court's decision mandated that these specific parts be addressed again by the council, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements and principles of transparency and openness.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.With the exception of the deletions noted below, the decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009 Feasibility Report, the Annual Programs and the Monthly Reports is affirmed.
2.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009 Feasibility Report concerning the identity of the three feasibility options and the general description of those options as set out in the Executive Summary of the Report are set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicant access to the identity of the three feasibility options in the Table of Contents and otherwise and also grant access to the general description of these options as contained in the Executive Summary in accordance with paragraph 98 of these reasons for decision.
3.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 Annual Programs relating to the 2009 Feasibility Report is set aside under section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons for decision.
4.The decision of the respondent in regard to the deletions in the March 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports as set out in paragraphs 101 and 102 of these reasons for decision, and the deletions in the minutes of meeting of the Committee attached to the April 2009 and May 2010 Monthly Reports as set out in paragraph 105 of these reasons for decision is set aside under section 63(3)(d) of the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons for decision.
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.