Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 176
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 07 July 2023
Decision date: 07 July 2023
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: D Ziegler, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) A hearing is dispensed with in accordance with s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) The decision by the Council to impose a processing charge on 19 April 2023 is set aside.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Government Information (Public Access) Act – Decision to impose a processing charge – whether information is personal information.

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

Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2022).

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Lynette Styles (Applicant)
Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation: Self-represented (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00135625
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

  2. Specifically, the matter I am required to decide concerns a decision by the Council to impose a processing charge prior to the release of information to Ms Styles.

  3. For the reasons that follow, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Council to impose a processing charge.

Background

  1. In March 2023, Ms Styles lodged “Code of Conduct” complaints with the Council in relation to two of its staff members – Mr Taylor and Mr Buckley (the complaints). I have not been provided with copies of the complaints but I understand they relate to statements made in the media by Mr Taylor and Mr Buckley in relation to Ms Styles, which Ms Styles claims were “false and misleading media statements”.

  2. On or about 21 March 2023, a Council staff member, Mr Imbs, wrote to Ms Styles in response to the complaints. I have not been provided with a copy of that correspondence, but it is common ground that the complaints were dismissed by the Council and that the Council determined that the complaints were “frivolous and vexatious and not made in good faith”.

  3. On 22 March 2023 Ms Styles lodged an application with the Council under s 9(1) of the GIPA Act (the access application) seeking access to the following information:

… all file notes, memos, messages and records of meetings between the Mayor Matt Gould and any other person in waiving his delegations to Eric Imbs between 1 March to the current date (22 March 2023).

… all file notes, memos, messages and records of any meetings between CEO Ben Taylor and Eric Imbs and any other person dealing with my Code of Conduct Complaint against the CEO Ben Taylor dated 13 March 2022 to the current date (22 March 2023) dealing with false and misleading media statements made by…

CaseChat AU logo

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 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Styles versus Wollondilly Shire Council, the plaintiff sought access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act. The dispute arose when the Shire Council imposed a processing charge for the information sought. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The central issue for determination was whether the information requested by the plaintiff constituted personal information, which would exempt it from the requirement to be provided free of charge.

The court had to determine whether the information sought was personal information as defined by the Act. If it was, the processing charge would be justified; if not, the plaintiff would be entitled to the information free of charge. The court considered the definition of personal information and the nature of the information sought. It was determined that the information was not personal information because it did not relate to an identifiable individual. Therefore, the processing charge was not justified.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the Shire Council's decision to impose a processing charge was incorrect. The decision was set aside, and the plaintiff was entitled to the information free of charge. No further hearing was necessary, as the matter was resolved on the written submissions alone. The court's order set aside the decision of the Council and dispensed with a hearing under section 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) A hearing is dispensed with in accordance with s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

(2) The decision by the Council to impose a processing charge on 19 April 2023 is set aside.

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.