CITATION: Robertson v Minister for Planning [2008] NSWADT 240 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Ian Robertson
Minister for PlanningFILE NUMBER: 083017 HEARING DATES: On the papers SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 25 March 2008
DATE OF DECISION:
27 August 2008BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Cianfrano v Director General, Premier's Department [2007] NSWADT 216
Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604
Egan v Chadwick (1999) 49 NSWLR 563
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2007] NSWADT 204
McGuirk v University of New South Wales (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 17
P v Greater Western Area Health Service [2007] NSWADT 87
Re Anderson and Department of Special Minister of State (No 2) (1986) 11 ALN 239
Retain Beacon Hill High School Committee Inc v NSW Treasury [2007] NSWADT 55
University of New South Wales v McGuirk [2006] NSWSC 1362
University of New South Wales v McGuirk (No 2) [2008] NSWADTAP 8REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
I Latham, barrister
R Bhalla, solicitorORDERS: The decision under review is affirmed.
1 By an application dated 14 December 2007, the Applicant made a request to the Minister for Planning (“the Respondent”) for documents pursuant to section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 ("the FOI Act). His request was in the following terms:
- “I request access to document(s) concerning:
(i) Draft bill or bills arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any of the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.
(ii) Draft legislation arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.
(iii) Draft Explanatory Memorandum or Memoranda for draft legislation leading to or incorporating all or any of the proposals set out in the Discussion/Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.
(iv) Instructions to Parliamentary Counsel as to the drafting of bills and/or legislation and/ explanatory memorandum or memoranda arising from, leading to or incorporating all or any the proposals set out in the Discussion Paper 'IMPROVING the NSW planning system' dated November 2007.”
2 The Respondent's FOI Coordinator and Policy Advisor, Ms Maree Keft, made a determination in respect of the request on 11 January 2008. She refused access to the documents pursuant to section 25(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Ms Keft made the determination to refuse access to the documents that she identified as falling within the scope of the application and stated:
- “The documents contain information that was prepared for submission to Cabinet. The documents also contain information that relates directly to recommendations made within a Cabinet Minute. Accordingly, the documents are exempt by virtue of clauses 1(1)(a), (b) and (e), clauses 9(1)(a)(i)(ii) and (b) and clause 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act.
My determination of today' s date is that access to all documents captured by the scope of your application has been refused.”
3…
Continue reading Robertson v Minister for Planning
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Robertson v Minister for Planning [2008] NSWADT 240
- Case
- [2008] NSWADT 240
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable and whether the Minister had failed to take into account relevant environmental considerations. The applicants argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable as it was not based on the evidence and that the Minister had not properly considered the impact of the proposed development on the local environment. The Minister, on the other hand, contended that the decision was reasonable and that all relevant factors had been taken into account.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Cummins found that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable and that all relevant environmental factors had been considered. The court found that the Minister had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the applicants' development application and that the decision was not flawed by any error of law. The court also found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the Minister had failed to take into account any relevant environmental considerations. As such, the court dismissed the applicants' appeal and affirmed the decision under review.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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.