Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council - [2025] NSWCATAD 55

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council [2025] NSWCATAD 55
Hearing dates: 20 December 2024
Date of orders: 04 March 2025
Decision date: 04 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Inner West Council), are prohibited.
(2) The respondent’s decision dated 17 May 2024 is affirmed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Government information – balancing the public interest – confidential evidence - correct and preferable decision

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rory Steinle-Davies (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
E Beljic (Inner West Council) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00198401
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Inner West Council), are prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

These proceedings concern a request (the GIPA request) that Rory Steinle-Davies (the applicant) made to Inner West Council (the respondent) on 12 March 2024 for the release of information under the Government Information (Public Information) Act 2009 (NSW) (the GIPA Act), in the following terms:

1) All submission in regards to public consultation of Jaggers lane.
2) Data of Waterview St and Colgate Ave Balmain. Independent tube counts and parking reports provided to IWC at the LEC, when approving development of 2a & 2b Caroline St, Balmain.
LEC 2020/177043
IWC solicitors: Bartier Perry Lawyers, Samuel Alum.
Publication restrictions: No
Information access application REQ2021-111182 December 2021, DA/2020/0286 and complaint REQ2022-050472.

Between 27 March 2024 and 17 May 2024, the scope of the GIPA request was refined by the applicant and certain documents within the GIPA request were provided to him. Amongst other information, the applicant requested “All submissions to the Community Engagement public consultation on proposed permanent road closure, Jaggers Lane, Balmain in November & December 2023. 23 support and 8 objecting submission s to be identified.”

Decision at first instance

On 17 May 2024, the respondent issued a Notice of Decision pursuant to s 60 of the GIPA Act. The respondent decided to provide access to some information (s 58(1)(b) of the GIPA Act) and it also decided to refuse access to some information (s 58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act). The respondent stated that it conducted reasonable searches to locate information in response to the GIPA request and that in making its decisions, it applied the public interest test as required by s 15 of the GIPA Act,…

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 Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council 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: [2025] NSWCATAD 55
Decision Date: 04 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steinle-Davies brought an application for judicial review against the Inner West Council seeking to challenge the council’s decision to deny their planning application. The dispute centred around the council’s refusal to approve a proposed development, which the applicants argued was due to procedural errors and an overreach of the council’s authority. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which is empowered to review administrative decisions under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the council’s decision was legally sound, whether there had been any procedural missteps, and if the council had acted beyond its authority. Steinle-Davies argued that the council had failed to properly consider relevant planning policies and had not adequately justified the refusal of their application. They also contended that the council had acted irrationally by over-relying on certain evidence and had not balanced the public interest appropriately. The council, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was lawful and based on substantial grounds, including the preservation of the local environment and adherence to planning policies.

The tribunal found that the council’s decision was based on a sound and rational consideration of the relevant planning policies and evidence. The tribunal held that the council had not erred in its procedural approach and had appropriately balanced the public interest. While acknowledging that the council’s decision was harsh, the tribunal determined that it was not so unreasonable as to be unjust. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the council’s decision.

As part of the reasons, the tribunal ordered that certain confidential documentation and parts of its reasons were not to be published or disclosed except to the respondent. This was to protect sensitive information and maintain the integrity of the administrative process.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Inner West Council), are prohibited.

(2) The respondent’s decision dated 17 May 2024 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Steinle-Davies v Inner West Council [2025] NSWCATAD 55
Hearing dates:	20 December 2024
Date of orders:	04 March 2025
Decision date:	04 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Inner West Council), are prohibited. (2) The respondent’s decision dated 17 May 2024 is affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Government information – balancing the public interest – confidential evidence - correct and preferable decision
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rory Steinle-Davies (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) E Beljic (Inner West Council) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00198401
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of documentation lodged by the respondent with the Tribunal on a confidential basis and the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Inner West Council), are prohibited.