Legal Research
Cases
Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW)

Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW)

Link copied

Case Copied 29 August 2014 36 min read

Contents

On this page

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 123
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 29 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Prof G D Walker, Senior Member
Decision:
Decision under review affirmed in part and set aside in part as ordered in paragraph 79 below.

Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - PUBLIC ACCESS -reasonable search
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review act 1997; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1997--Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited: Beesly v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 52; Camilleri v Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137; Curtin v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179, (1979) 46 FLR 409; Miriani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2005] NSWADT 187; Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213; Pedestrian Council of Australia v North Sydney Council [2014] NSWCATAD 80; Shepherd v Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning [1994] QAR 464.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Philip Stanley (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation: P Stanley (Applicant in person)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 1410068

reasons for decision

The applicant Mr Philip Stanley applied to this tribunal on 12 February 2014 for review of a decision by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) dated 30 January 2014 on the ground that "RMS has not fully complied with my GIPA requests of 26 Nov 2014 [sic] GIPA14G1172 and 27 Nov GIPA G 141185 - notice of 30/1/14 and emails attached."

The respondent's decision in question was the decision to release to the applicant a CD containing 94 pages of documents, which the respondent considered to be a release of the documents requested by the applicant in full. The review application appears to be based on s 80(e) of the GIPA Act, which declares that a decision "that government information is not held by the agency" is a decision to which the Act applies and is a proper subject for a review application. The respondent accepts that, as the applicant contends that RMS holds further information covered by his application, in addition to that which was released to him, a determination under s 80(e) was by implication made.

An attachment to the application explains that Mr Stanley's reason for applying for the information is the RMS proposal to narrow the westbound lanes of Fullers Road, Chatswood, rather than instal a fixed speed camera. He believes that the narrowing proposal greatly threatens the safety of his daughter and her children when she reverses out of her Fullers Road driveway into a busy traffic flow. He also claims to represent the interests of 13 other affected residents.

RMS officers have made decisions in relation to four previous applications by Mr Stanley between March and July 2013. The applicant claims that RMS…

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 Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) 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: [2014] NSWCATAD 123
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Stanley, who sought access to certain government information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The respondent, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), denied the request, leading Stanley to appeal this decision. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with deciding whether RMS's refusal to provide the information was justified under the provisions of the Act and whether the search conducted by RMS constituted a reasonable effort to locate and disclose the information requested.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether RMS had conducted a reasonable search for the information requested by Stanley. Additionally, the court needed to determine if RMS's failure to disclose the information was justified under the Act. The court examined the extent of the search conducted by RMS, the relevance and necessity of the information requested, and whether the information was exempt from disclosure under the Act. The court also assessed whether RMS had provided adequate reasons for its decision to deny the request.

In its decision, the court found that RMS had not conducted a reasonable search for the information requested, as the search was limited in scope and failed to identify relevant documents. The court held that RMS's failure to conduct a more thorough search meant that the refusal to disclose the information could not be justified. The court emphasised the importance of a reasonable search in ensuring transparency and accountability in government operations. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of RMS to the extent that it was based on the inadequate search, and affirmed it in all other respects. The case was remitted back to RMS with directions to conduct a proper search and reconsider the request.

The court ordered that the decision under review be affirmed in part and set aside in part, as detailed in paragraph 79 of the judgment. The specific orders directed RMS to conduct a reasonable search for the information requested and to provide Stanley with a new decision based on the outcome of this search. The court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to the requirements of the Government Information (Public Access) Act in ensuring public access to government information.

Orders

Orders of the court

Decision under review affirmed in part and set aside in part as ordered in paragraph 79 below.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services [2014] NSWCATAD 123
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	29 August 2014
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Prof G D Walker, Senior Member
Decision:	Decision under review affirmed in part and set aside in part as ordered in paragraph 79 below.
Catchwords:	GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - PUBLIC ACCESS -reasonable search
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review act 1997; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1997--Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	Beesly v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 52; Camilleri v Premier's Department [2006] NSWADT 137; Curtin v University of New South Wales (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 56; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179, (1979) 46 FLR 409; Miriani v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2005] NSWADT 187; Patsalis v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 213; Pedestrian Council of Australia v North Sydney Council [2014] NSWCATAD 80; Shepherd v Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning [1994] QAR 464.
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Philip Stanley (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:	P Stanley (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1410068