CITATION: Starr v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 28 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Anthony William Starr
Sydney Water CorporationFILE NUMBER: 093029 HEARING DATES: 24 June 2009, 6 July 2009 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 6 November 2009
DATE OF DECISION:
29 January 2010BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Freedom of Information - exempt document - Documents containing confidential material - Documents affecting business affairs - Documents subject to legal professional privilege - Documents concerning operations of agencies LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989CASES CITED: Black v Hunter New England Area Health Service [2008] NSWADT 301
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 29 FCR 429
Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd and Anor v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 223 CLR 543
Howell v Macquarie University [2008] NSWCA 26
Keriakes v State Rail Authority of NSW [2003] NSWADT 191
McGuirk v University Of New South Wales; University Of New South Wales v McGuirk [2009] NSWCA 321
Neary v State Rail Authority [1999] NSWADT 107
Re Maher and AG’s Department (No 2) (1986) 4 AAR 226 at 277.
Re Saxon and Australian Maritime Authority (unreported, AAT, Cth, 19 June).
Robinson v Director General, Department of Health [2002] NSWADT 222
Vella v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2009] NSWADT 68
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54
Watt v Forests NSW [2007] NSWADT 197REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
In person
J Mattson, solicitorORDERS: The decision is affirmed.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 Mr Starr (“the Applicant”) applied to the Sydney Water Corporation (“Sydney Water”) under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (“the FOI Act”), for access to documents held by Sydney Water.
The factual background
2 Sydney Water undertakes statutory functions as a Trunk Drainage Authority on land adjacent to the Applicant's property. In that role, it is to provide storm water and flood management along the trunk drainage system. To perform the work as a Trunk Drainage Authority Sydney Water acquired land ("the Site") from the Applicant. The Applicant still resides at a property adjacent to the land acquired from him.
3 Sydney Water currently uses the Site for trunk drainage purposes and often attends the Site to perform its duties. It uses employees and contractors to perform its duties on the Site.
4 The Applicant has made various complaints about the work of Sydney Water at the Site. Contractors and employees engaged to work at the Site and employees who have had dealings with the Applicant have made confidential complaints to Sydney Water about the behaviour of the Applicant. The complainants perceived the Applicant's conduct to be of a bullying and harassing nature. The complainants expressed concerns about being verbally abused and harassed by the Applicant.
5 The Site is the location of some of the alleged harassment and verbal abuse.
6 Warning letters were sent to the Applicant in April and May 2007 about his alleged behaviour. The Applicant made a complaint to The Energy & Water Ombudsman NSW (“EWON”).
7…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Starr v Sydney Water Corporation 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
- [2010] NSWADT 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue revolved around whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, Sydney Water argued that the documents contained confidential material, affected business affairs, were subject to legal professional privilege, and concerned the operations of agencies, thus qualifying for exemption. Starr contested these grounds, arguing that the documents should be disclosed to the public in the interest of transparency and accountability.
The court examined the applicability of the various exemptions claimed by Sydney Water. It found that the documents indeed contained confidential material, impacted business affairs, and were subject to legal professional privilege. Additionally, the court recognised that the documents concerned the operations of agencies, which also warranted exemption. The court concluded that these exemptions were valid and upheld Sydney Water's decision to withhold the documents. The decision was affirmed, and Starr's application for disclosure was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision 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.