Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council - [2023] NSWCATAD 315

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 315
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 12 December 2023
Decision date: 12 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: P H Molony, Senior Member
Decision:
1. The Tribunal being satisfied that the issues for determination in this matter can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, by considering the submissions and material lodged by them, dispenses with a hearing in this matter.
2. The decision under review is set aside and remitted to Wollondilly Shire Council for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that all the information in email chains 1, 2 and 3 be disclosed to Ms Styles, such reconsideration to be completed within 30 days of publication of these reasons.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Freedom of information — Access to information — administrative review of decision under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 — whether reasonable searches undertaken for information responsive to access application — burden of proof that reasonable searches undertaken on agency — whether public interest considerations against disclosure made out — burden on agency to demonstrate each public interest consideration against disclosure relied on — no such burden on access applicant.

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Evidence Act 1995
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Cases Cited:
AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241
Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Australians for Sustainable Development Inc v Barangaroo Delivery Authority [2013] NSWADT 252
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409
General Manager, Workcover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Nature Conservation Council of NSW v Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services [2012] NSWADT 195];
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45
Miriani v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 16
Peacock v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 20
Samandi v NSW Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 286
Seremetis v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 317
Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 176
Toplace Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta [2021] NSWCATAD 149
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 257
Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173
XZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2009] NSWADTAP 2

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lynette Styles (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/00242487
Publication restriction: None

reasons for decision

Background.

This is an application for administrative review of a decision (the decision) of Wollondilly Shire Council (the agency) concerning an application for access to information made by Ms Styles under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)…

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 Styles v Wollondilly Shire 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: [2023] NSWCATAD 315
Decision Date: 12 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Styles and Wollondilly Shire Council was heard and determined by the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales. The central issue in the case was whether the Council had undertaken reasonable searches for information in response to an access application made by Styles under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. Additionally, the court had to determine whether public interest considerations against disclosure were sufficiently substantiated by the Council.

The Commission found that the Council had not conducted reasonable searches for the information requested by Styles. Furthermore, the Council had not adequately demonstrated that the public interest considerations against disclosure were valid. The burden of proving that reasonable searches were conducted and that public interest considerations were justified was on the Council, not on Styles. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the Council's decision to deny Styles access to the requested information was flawed.

In light of these findings, the Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be set aside and remitted to the Council for reconsideration. The reconsideration must include the disclosure of all information in email chains 1, 2, and 3 to Styles, and the Council must complete this process within 30 days of the publication of these reasons. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to not hold a hearing, relying instead on the submissions and material provided by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal being satisfied that the issues for determination in this matter can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, by considering the submissions and material lodged by them, dispenses with a hearing in this matter.

2. The decision under review is set aside and remitted to Wollondilly Shire Council for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that all the information in email chains 1, 2 and 3 be disclosed to Ms Styles, such reconsideration to be completed within 30 days of publication of these reasons.

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:	Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 315
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	12 December 2023
Decision date:	12 December 2023
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	P H Molony, Senior Member
Decision:	1. The Tribunal being satisfied that the issues for determination in this matter can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties, by considering the submissions and material lodged by them, dispenses with a hearing in this matter. 2. The decision under review is set aside and remitted to Wollondilly Shire Council for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that all the information in email chains 1, 2 and 3 be disclosed to Ms Styles, such reconsideration to be completed within 30 days of publication of these reasons.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Freedom of information — Access to information — administrative review of decision under Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 — whether reasonable searches undertaken for information responsive to access application — burden of proof that reasonable searches undertaken on agency — whether public interest considerations against disclosure made out — burden on agency to demonstrate each public interest consideration against disclosure relied on — no such burden on access applicant.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Evidence Act 1995 Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Cases Cited:	AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241 Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180 Australians for Sustainable Development Inc v Barangaroo Delivery Authority [2013] NSWADT 252 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409 General Manager, Workcover Authority of NSW v Law Society of NSW [2006] NSWCA 84 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Nature Conservation Council of NSW v Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services [2012] NSWADT 195]; McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45 Miriani v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 16 Peacock v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 20 Samandi v NSW Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 286 Seremetis v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 317 Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 176 Toplace Pty Ltd v City of Parramatta [2021] NSWCATAD 149 Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 257 Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 XZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2009] NSWADTAP 2
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lynette Styles (Applicant) Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2023/00242487
Publication restriction:	None