Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Starr v Superannuation Administration Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 76 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 15 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: 1. The name of the respondent is changed from Pillar Administration to Superannuation Administration Corporation.
2. The decision of the respondent is set aside and the following decision is made in substitution for it: The respondent is to provide the applicant with access to information contained in the two page document sent by the SAS Trustee Corporation to the respondent which is referred to in these reasons, other than the third to eighth paragraphs of that document, within 28 days of the date of this decision. Access to the remainder of the information sought (including in any attachment to that document) is refused.Catchwords: Access to information – Client legal privilege – Whether common law or Evidence Act 2005 applies to overriding public interest against disclosure on the basis of client legal privilege (legal professional privilege) - Advice privilege – Whether privilege waived by provision of advice to a third party Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Evidence Amendment Act 1997 (NSW)
Superannuation Administration Authority Corporatisation Act 1999 (NSW)
Superannuation Administration Act 1996 (NSW)Cases Cited: Tziolas v NSW Department of Education and Communities [2012] NSWADT 69
Choy v Willoughby City Council [2012] NSWADT 277
SL v University of Sydney [2011] NSWADT 65 at [17]-[20].
Fitzpatrick v NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming [2010] NSWADT 72
Colefax v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 75
Hargreaves v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 233
Director General, Attorney General's Department v Cianfrano [2006] NSWADTAP 26
Chan v Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 7
Eric Preston Pty Ltd v Euroz Securities Ltd [2009] FCA 240
Chamley v Sydney Children's Hospital Network [2013] NSWADT 197
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No 2) [2007] FCA 1445Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Starr (Applicant)
Superannuation Administration Corporation (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
J Starr (Applicant in person)
Legal Office of Superannuation Administration Corporation (Respondent)
File Number(s): 1410673
reasons for decision
-
The main issue in these proceedings is whether information to which the applicant has sought access would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of client legal privilege or legal professional privilege.
-
The applicant applied under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“GIPA Act”) for access to information in documents contained in his file for his membership of the State Superannuation Scheme, which is held by the respondent.
-
On 2 October 2014, the respondent’s Information Access Coordinator wrote to the applicant, providing access to the information requested with the exception of twelve pages. The ground for refusing to provide those pages was that they contain material that would be privileged from…
Continue reading Starr v Superannuation Administration Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Starr v Superannuation Administration Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 76
- Case
- [2015] NSWCATAD 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court considered whether the documents in question were covered by client legal privilege or advice privilege. The Court found that client legal privilege applied to the first part of the document, as it contained legal advice given by the respondent to the SAS Trustee Corporation. However, the Court found that advice privilege applied to the second part of the document, as it contained advice given by the respondent to the SAS Trustee Corporation which was not of a confidential nature. The Court also considered whether the overriding public interest required disclosure of the information in the documents, but found that it did not.
The Court set aside the decision of the respondent and ordered that the respondent provide Starr with access to the first part of the document within 28 days of the date of the decision. However, access to the second part of the document was denied, as the Court found that the overriding public interest did not require disclosure of the information contained in that part of the document. The Court also changed the name of the respondent from Pillar Administration to Superannuation Administration Corporation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the respondent is changed from Pillar Administration to Superannuation Administration Corporation.
2. The decision of the respondent is set aside and the following decision is made in substitution for it: The respondent is to provide the applicant with access to information contained in the two page document sent by the SAS Trustee Corporation to the respondent which is referred to in these reasons, other than the third to eighth paragraphs of that document, within 28 days of the date of this decision. Access to the remainder of the information sought (including in any attachment to that document) is refused.
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.