Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council - [2023] NSWCATAD 8

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 8
Hearing dates: 29 November 2022
Date of orders: 09 January 2023
Decision date: 09 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
1. The respondent’s decision dated 4 July 2022, as varied by its written submissions dated 11 October 2022, is affirmed.
2. There is no proper basis for an objection to the payment of the processing fee to the respondent.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review –
Government information – Legal professional privilege - confidential hearing and evidence - scope of application – public interest test – balancing the public interest

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
State Records Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2019] NSWCATAD 34
Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 688
Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46
Holman v Warringah Council [2015] NSWCATAD 215
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292
Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272
YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247

Texts Cited:
None cited

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

File Number(s): 2022/00199706
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or disclosure of the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Wollondilly Shire Council)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

These proceedings concern a request that Lynette Style (the applicant) made to Wollondilly Shire Council (the respondent) on 1 June 2022 for the release of documents under the Government Information (Public Information) Act 2009 (NSW) (the GIPA Act) relating to herself, as follows:

…I seek access to all file notes, emails, reports and any other form of written communication between the Integrity & Governance Manager Eric Imbs and any Council employee, including the General Manager and Councillors regarding the publication of my book entitled “Antill Golf Club Associates” commencing after 4 May 2022.
Further I seek access to all file notes, emails, reports and any other written communications between the Customer & Corporate Services Manager Caroline Argent and any other Council employee and the General Manager in dealing with the publication of my book “Antill Golf Club Associates” commencing after 4 May 2022.

On 4 July 2022, the respondent issued a Notice of Decision under the GIPA Act and decided to withhold some of the requested information under Sch 1, cl 5 of the GIPA Act on the…

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 8
Decision Date: 09 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council, the applicant sought judicial review of the council's decision to deny access to certain documents under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW). The applicant alleged that the documents were relevant to a planning matter and claimed that the council had improperly withheld them under the guise of legal professional privilege. The application was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, with Justice Groves presiding.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the council's decision to deny access to the documents was lawful, and whether the claim of legal professional privilege was justified. The applicant argued that the documents were not protected by privilege and that their disclosure was necessary for the proper administration of justice. The council contended that the documents were privileged and that their disclosure would harm its legal professional relationship with its legal advisors.

Justice Groves found that the council's decision to deny access to the documents was lawful. The court held that the documents were protected by legal professional privilege and that the council had demonstrated that their disclosure would harm its legal professional relationship with its legal advisors. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the documents were not privileged, finding that they related to the council's legal advice and were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court also held that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of legal advice outweighed any public interest in disclosure.

The court affirmed the council's decision and found that there was no proper basis for an objection to the payment of the processing fee to the council. The applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed, and the respondent's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent’s decision dated 4 July 2022, as varied by its written submissions dated 11 October 2022, is affirmed.

2. There is no proper basis for an objection to the payment of the processing fee to the respondent.

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 8
Hearing dates:	29 November 2022
Date of orders:	09 January 2023
Decision date:	09 January 2023
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	1. The respondent’s decision dated 4 July 2022, as varied by its written submissions dated 11 October 2022, is affirmed. 2. There is no proper basis for an objection to the payment of the processing fee to the respondent.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Government information – Legal professional privilege - confidential hearing and evidence - scope of application – public interest test – balancing the public interest
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) State Records Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Fisher v Goulburn Mulwaree Council [2019] NSWCATAD 34 Flack v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2011] NSWADT 286 Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 at 688 Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 Holman v Warringah Council [2015] NSWCATAD 215 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Meldru v Wollondilly Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 292 Taylor v Destination NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 272 YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Lynette Styles (Applicant) Wollondilly Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self Represented) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2022/00199706
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or disclosure of the parts of these Reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent (Wollondilly Shire Council)