Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council
[2004] NSWADT 167
•08/13/2004
CITATION: Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2004] NSWADT 167 revised - 20/09/2004 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Lynette Styles
RESPONDENT
Wollondilly Shire CouncilFILE NUMBER: 043054 HEARING DATES: 9/06/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/09/2004 DATE OF DECISION:
08/13/2004BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: access to documents - advance deposit and fees and charges - Freedom of Information Act - access to documents - advance deposit and fees and charges MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Order 1989
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Local Government Act 1993CASES CITED: Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35
Hutchinson v Director General, Roads and Traffic Authority [2004] NSWADT 48REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
A Seton, solicitorORDERS: The decision by the Wollondilly Shire Council to refuse to continue dealing with the Freedom of Information application lodged by Ms Styles is affirmed
1 On 4 March 2004 Ms Lynette Styles applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Wollondilly Shire Council (“the Council”) to refuse to determine a request by Ms Styles for access to certain documentation under the NSW Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”).
Background
2 Ms Styles is a former councillor with the Council. On 9 December 2003 she lodged a request for access to documents that she understood to be held by the Council. She identified the particular documents that she sought as follows:
- “1. Access to Statement of Christine Towndrow itemised on Marsdens account attached to their letter to the General Manager dated 5 August 1999.
2. Access to General Manager Graham Taylor's letter of instruction to Marsdens dated 20 July 1999.
3. Access to ALL sets of personal files in the name of Councillor Lynette Styles S479 including all correspondence from John Marsden to the General Manager and/or Christine Towndrow and all replies from the General Manager and/or Christine Towndrow.
4. Access to ALL other files concerning or relating to Lynette Styles including the Mayor's files 1995 to 2003.
5. Access to ALL correspondence written by the General Manager Graham Taylor to Adam Seton of Marsdens and all replies by Adam Seton of Marsdens to the General Manager Graham Taylor.
6. Access to items on Marsden's bill of costs (copy attached)
- Item 1, "letter from Council".
Item 7, "advice to Council and further instructions and documentation'.
Item 22, file notes of 'telephone attendance on GM re: council meeting.
Item 23, 'facsimile from Council providing copy of minutes'
Item 53, 'letter from Council providing instructions and enclosing
copies of documentation received from Ombudsman'
Item 56, file notes of 'perusal of Council Codes of Conduct'
Item 72, 'letter to Council requesting documentation'
Item 73. ' letter from Council enclosing documentation as requested'
Item 87, file notes on 'perusal of Notice to Produce'
Item 88, files notes on 'telephone attendance discussing Notice to Produce'
Item 90, file notes on 'telephone attendance on council and providing advice'
Item 91, facsimile from Council advising on production of documents
Item 108, 'letter to council requesting further instructions'.
Item 109, 'letter to counsel providing instructions'
Item 144, 'letter from council enclosing correspondence from
Department of Local Government which addressed many issues
raised by Styles and consideration of same (6 pages).
Item 145, 'letter to counsel enclosing copy of letter from Council dated 19.4.00'.
Item 149, file notes on 'telephone attendance on Council re offer of settlement'.
Item 151, file notes ' of letter from Council providing advice re offer of settlement'
8. Access to ALL files in relation to Lynette Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council with regard to costs.”
3 On 18 December 2003 Mr Greg Fisher, the Council’s Director, Corporate & Community Services, wrote to Ms Styles seeking clarification of her request. Mr Greg Fisher wrote as follows:
- “Further to Council's correspondence of 17 December here is an outline to you of our understanding of your FOI request. This correspondence is to and seek your feedback of Council's understanding of the matter.
Access to Statement of Christine Towndrow itemised on Marsdens account attached to their letter to the General Manager dated 5 August 1999. -As read.
Access to General Manager Graham Taylor's letter of instruction to Marsdens dated 20 July 1999. -As read.
Access to ALL sets of personal files in the name of Councillor Lynette Styles S479 including all correspondence from John Marsden to the General Manager and/or Christine Towndrow and all replies from the General Manager and/or Christine Towndrow. Council understands your request to mean all information in the name of Councillor Lynette Styles contained in the file S479.
Access to ALL other files concerning or relating to Lynette Styles including the Mayor's files 1995 to 2003.
Council understands the request to mean access to files labelled Lynette Styles or files established to contain matters relating to Lynette Styles. With respect to the Mayor's files 1995 to 2003 Council maintains a correspondence file pertaining to the Mayor. 1t is our understanding you wish access to a particular set within those files as opposed to every piece of correspondence relating to Lynette Styles that may exist on these files.
Access to ALL correspondence written by the General Manager Graham Taylor to Adam Seton of Marsdens and all replies by Adam Seton of Marsdens to the General Manager Graham Taylor.
It is noted that correspondence from Council's Solicitors on all matters are addressed to the General Manager. Council assumes in relation to Item 5 you require access to a particular matter or file. Would you please specify the matter all file to which you require access.
Access to items on Marsden's bill of costs (copy attached). As read
Access to ALL files L9/15/4 in relation to Lynette Styles. As read.
Access to ALL files in relation to Lynette Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council with regard to costs.
Council takes your request to mean the present cost assess application by Council.
Your clarification of these issues would be appreciated.”
4 Also on 18 December 2003, Mr Fisher wrote to Ms Styles as follows:
- “Council has given your Freedom of Information request initial consideration and ascertained what we believe to be relevant material in making a determination on this matter. In doing so it [appears] likely that the cost to Council will exceed the application fee.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, Council requires the payment of an advance deposit before it can determine your application. Council has determined the amount of this advance deposit to be $960.00.
Further to the above, in accordance with Section 21 sub section 5 of the Act, Council requires payment of this fee within twenty one (21) days from the date of this letter. In relation to the time period, we draw your attention to Section 21 sub section 6 of the Act which states as follows: :
- 'The period of time between making of a request under this section and the payment of an advance deposit in accordance with the request shall not be taken into account in calculating the period of 21 days within which the relevant application is required to be dealt with."
5 The attached notice stated:
- FEES AND CHARGES FOR FOI APPLICATION
B. PROCESSING CHARGES FOR A REQUEST FOR PERSONAL AFFAIRS DOCUMENTS: (includes search and retrieval time; decision-making time; consultation time; cost of photocopying, transcription, supervision.)
1st 20 hours free; $30 per hour thereafter estimated to the nearest quarter hour
Retrieval of files -estimated 1 hour @ $30 30.00
Perusal of files -estimated 20 hours @ $30 600.00
Collation of files -estimated 16 hours @ $30 480.00
Preparing schedule -estimated 8 hours @ $30 240.00
Supervision of application -estimated 7 hours @ $30 210.00
1560.00
Less discount for first 20 hours 600.00
Total advance deposit $960.00
6 On 21 December 2003, Ms Styles wrote to the Council to object to the unreasonableness of the $960.00 advance deposit.
7 On 12 February 2004 the Council wrote to Ms Styles in the following terms:
- “You have requested under the NSW Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) access to certain documentation you believe to be held by Council.
Council has corresponded with you on 18 December 2003 outlining its understanding of your FOI request and sought feedback from you on particular matters relating to that request.
In addition, Council has, under Section 21 of the FOI Act on 18 December requested the payment of an advance deposit as in its opinion the cost to Council of dealing with the application is likely to exceed the amount of the application fee. This advance deposit was required to be paid within 21 days of the 18th December.
In accordance with Section 22 of the Act, I am now providing you with written notice that Council has decided to refuse to determine the application due to the non-payment of the advanced deposit.
Name of Decision Maker: Greg Fisher
Date of Decision: 27 January 2003”
8 This notice incorrectly indicated that the day of the Council's decision. This date should have read "27 January 2004". On 16 February 2004 Ms Styles requested an internal review of the Council's decision to refuse her FOI request. The internal review was finalised on about 1 March 2004 and the original decision was affirmed. Mr Graham Taylor the Council's General Manager wrote to Ms Styles in the following terms:
- “APPLICATION FOR ACCESS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (NSW)
I refer to your letter dated 16 February 2004 requesting an internal review of the determination made on 27 January 2004 by Council's Director, Corporate and Community Services, Mr Greg Fisher, to refuse to continue dealing with the Freedom of Information application lodged by you on 9 December 2003 on the basis that payment of an advance deposit had been requested in relation to the application and such deposit had not been made within the period of time specified in the request.
I, as principal officer of Wollondilly Shire Council, have reviewed the determination made by Mr Fisher in respect of your application as required by Section 34 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (FOI Act).
I find that the costs to the Council of dealing with the application are likely to exceed the sum of the application fee and that the request for payment of $960.00 as an advance deposit is reasonable in the circumstances. In that regard I note that the amount of the deposit was calculated as follows:
Retrieval of files: estimated 1 hour at $30.00
Perusal of files: estimated 20 hours at $30.00
Collation of files: estimated 16 hours at $30.00
Preparing schedule: estimated 8 hours at $30.00
Supervision of application: estimated 7 hours at $30.00
Less discount for first 20 hours
TOTAL ADVANCE DEPOSIT: $960.00.
Due to non-payment of the advance deposit that was requested within the period of time specified in the request, I have determined that the Council should refuse to continue dealing with the application.
Despite the refusal to deal with your freedom of information application, the Council is proceeding, as indicated in our letter to you of 6 February 2004 to deal with the request made by you on 6 February 2004, for information under Section 12(6) of the Local Government Act 1993. That request is being processed free of charge. If however you require a copy of any document to which access is given, copying charges may apply.
Council expects to be in a position to answer your request for inspection of documents under Section 12(6) of the Local Government Act 1993 shortly and will be in contact with you in that regard.
9 Ms Styles has sought a review of the Council’s decision. She provided the following reasons for her application to the Tribunal:
- “1. The Agency's demand for $960.00 advance deposit fees is unreasonable and designed to prohibit access under the Freedom of Information Act.
2. The application dated 9 December 2003 was refused on 27 January and notice was given to the applicant by Council letter dated 12 February 2004 after receipt of the Ombudsman's letter dated 3 February 2004 to the applicant recommending reducing the scope of the FOI application pursuant to s 12 Local Government Act. An amended application was submitted to the agency by letter dated 6 February 2004. The amended letter of 6 February was ignored by Council in its letter dated 12 February 2004 advising refusal of the FOI application for non-payment of $960.00 advance deposit as demanded.
3. The documents sought under FOI and refused by the agency are:
i) Access to File L9/15/4 in relation to all documents concerning Ms Styles, and;
ii) Access to Statement made by ex-Mayor Christine Towndrow concerning Ms L Styles which was given to the General Manager Graham Taylor who then forwarded the statement to council’s solicitors Marsdens Law Group of Campbelltown in July 1999 for advice on the General Manager's instructions at a cost of 3,954.40.
iii) All documents requested under FOI which have not been provided by the agency to the applicant pursuant to s 12 Local Government Act concerning Ms Styles.
10 The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Council has made he correct and preferable decision.
Applicable legislation
11 The relevant provisions of the FOI Act in relation to the Council’s requirement of an advance deposit are found in sections 21 and 22 which provide:
- “21 Agencies may require advance deposits
(1) If, in the opinion of an agency, the costs to the agency of dealing with an application are likely to exceed the amount of the application fee, the agency may request the applicant to pay to it such amount, by way of advance deposit, as the agency may determine.
(2) If, in the opinion of an agency, the costs to the agency of dealing with an application are likely to exceed the sum of the application fee and of any advance deposits paid in respect of the application, the agency may request the applicant to pay to it such amount, by way of further advance deposit, as the agency may determine.
(3) The amount of an advance deposit requested by an agency in respect of an application shall not be such that the sum of the application fee, the advance deposit and any further advance deposits paid in respect of the application exceeds such amount as, in the opinion of the agency, will be necessary to cover the costs of dealing with the application.
(4) A request for an advance deposit shall be accompanied by a notice that sets out the basis on which the amount of the deposit has been calculated.
(5) The amount of an advance deposit requested by an agency in respect of an application shall be paid to the agency within such period of time as the agency may specify in the request.
(6) The period of time between the making of a request under this section and the payment of an advance deposit in accordance with the request shall not be taken into account in calculating the period of 21 days within which the relevant application is required to be dealt with.
22 Agencies may refuse to continue to deal with applications if advance deposit not paid
(1), (2) (Repealed)
(3) An agency may refuse to continue dealing with an application if:
(a) it has requested payment of an advance deposit in relation to the application, and
(b) payment of the deposit has not been made within the period of time specified in the request.
(4) If an agency refuses to continue dealing with an application under subsection (3):
(a) it shall refund to the applicant such part of the advance deposits paid in respect of the application as exceeds the costs incurred by the agency in dealing with the application, and
(b) it may retain the remainder of those deposits.
(5) An agency that refuses to continue to deal with an application under this section must forthwith cause written notice of that fact to be given to the applicant.
(6) A refusal to continue to deal with an application under this section is taken to be a determination that is subject to internal review under Part 3 and external review under Part 5, and the provisions of those Parts apply accordingly.”
12 Determinations of FOI applications are to be in accordance with section 24 of the FOI Act which provides:
- “24 Determination of applications
(1) After considering an application for access to a document, an agency shall determine:
(a) whether access to the document is to be given (whether immediately or subject to deferral) or refused, and
(b) if access to the document is to be given--any charge payable in respect of the giving of access, and
(c) any charge payable for dealing with the application.
(2) An agency that fails to determine an application within 21 days after the application is received by the agency shall, for the purposes of section 34 and other provisions of this Act, be taken to have determined the application by refusing access to the document to which it relates.
(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents an agency from determining that access should be given to the document even though more than 21 days have elapsed after the application was received by the agency. Sections 64 and 65 apply to access given pursuant to such a determination in the same way as they apply to access given pursuant to any other determination under this Act.
(3) This section does not require an agency to determine an application that the agency has transferred to another agency under section 20 or has refused to continue to deal with under section 22.”
13 Section 53 of the FOI Act provides for applications to the Tribunal:
- 53 Right to make a review application
(1) A person who is aggrieved by a determination made by an agency or Minister under section 24 or 43 may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the determination.
(2) A review application may not be made:
(a) while the determination is subject to a right of review under section 34 or 47, or
(b) if the determination has been subject to a right of review under section 34 or 47 but no application for such a review of the determination was made while it was subject to that right, or
(c) while any relevant complaint is being investigated by the Ombudsman.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person is aggrieved by a determination:
(a) in the case of a determination that relates to an access application made by the person under section 17, 34 or 36--if the determination is to the effect that:
- (i) an agency or Minister refuses to give the person access to a document, or
(ii) access to a document is to be given to the person subject to deferral, or
(iii) access to a copy of a document from which exempt matter has been deleted is to be given to the person, or
(iv) access to a document is to be given to the person subject to a charge for dealing with the access application, or for giving access to a document, that the person considers to be unreasonable, or
(v) a charge for dealing with the access application is payable by the person being a charge that the person considers to have been unreasonably incurred, or
- (i) an agency or Minister should have, but has not, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to obtain the views of the person as to whether or not the document is an exempt document by virtue of any one or more of the provisions of Part 2 of Schedule 1, or
(ii) an agency or Minister should have, and has, taken such steps but the determination is not in accordance with the views of the person, or
and the determination has been made as a consequence of a review under section 34 or 47 or has not been subject to a right of review under either of those sections.
(4) In relation to decisions under this Act that are reviewable decisions under the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997:
(a) the procedures for internal reviews provided by this Act apply to the exclusion of section 53 (Internal reviews) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 , and
(b) any reference in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to an internal review of a reviewable decision under that Act is taken, in its application to a decision made under this Act, to be a reference to an internal review under this Act.
(5) The provisions of this Division apply to a review application to the exclusion of section 55 (1) (d), section 58 and Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 5 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.”
14 Section 61 of the FOI Act provides that the burden of proof is on the Council:
- “61 Burden of proof
In any proceedings concerning a determination made under this Act by an agency or Minister, the burden of establishing that the determination is justified lies on the agency or Minister.”
15 Clauses 4 and 5 of the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Order 1989, published in the New South Wales Government Gazette No.81 30 JUNE 1989, provide for the fees that may be charged in relation to an FOI application:
- Fees to be imposed
4. (1) An application fee under section 17 or 36 of the Act is to be not less than $20 and not more than $30.
(2) An application fee under section 34 of the Act is to be not less than $20 and not more than $40.
Charges to be imposed
5. (1) The charges---
(a) for the giving of access to a document (being a charge determined under section 24 (b) of the Act); and
(b) for dealing with .an application (being a charge determined under section 24 (c ) of the Act) ,
are to be calculated on the basis of an hourly rate of $30 per hour.
(2) Such a charge is not to be imposed in respect of---
(a) the first 20 hours during which---
- (i) an application under section 17 or 36 of the Act (being an application made by a natural person in respect of documents relating to his or her personal affairs) is dealt with; or
(ii) access to a document the subject of such an application is given; or
(3) Such a charge is to be calculated on the time spent by the agency's or Minister's staff in actually dealing with the application or giving access to the document, calculated to the nearest quarter of an hour.
16 The Council has calculated that Ms Styles’ request relates to a total of over 11,500 pages. This calculation does not take into account the need to identify relevant correspondence to and from the Council’s solicitors, Marsdens. The Council relies on an affidavit from Mr Fisher, which sets out the basis of his calculations for the advance deposit request. Mr Fisher states:
- “6. After considering the list of documents to which access was sought in the FOI Application I ascertained that, in order to answer the FOI Application, the following files would need to be retrieved and then examined to determine whether they contained documents that were exempt or required consultation under the FOI Act…
7. I subsequently made an estimate that the likely time involved in dealing with the FOI Application would be in the order of 52 hours comprising of the following:
a. Retrieval of files - 1 hour
b. Perusal of files - 20 hours
c. Collation of files to prepare for inspection - 1 hours
d. Preparing schedule of exempt documents - 8 hours
e. Supervising access to documents - 7 hours
8. Given that in excess of 20 hours was estimated to be required to deal with the FOI Application I determined that it was necessary for the Respondent to pay an advance deposit in accordance with Section 21 of the FOI Act. In that regard I calculated the amount of the advance deposit at the rate of $30.00 per hour after the first 20 hours of the estimated total time of 52 hours which result in an amount of $960.00 (32 hours x $30.00).”
17 Mr Seton referred to the decision in Hutchinson v Director General, Roads and Traffic Authority [2004] NSWADT 48 where Judicial Member Higgins considered the issue of an FOI application where the RTA had advised Mr Hutchinson that it estimated that the costs involved in processing his FOI application would be $354,000. This cost was calculated on the basis of $30 per hour for approximately 11,800 hours. Mr Hutchinson modified the terms of his initial FOI application and the RTA revised its estimate of costs. The revised costs were $5,700, which was calculated on the basis of $30 per hour for approximately 190 hours. Following an internal review the RTA again revised its estimate of costs to be $1,710. The solicitors for the RTA raised a jurisdictional issue. The essence of the issue is was that the RTA’s decision, was not a decision that was reviewable by the Tribunal.
18 The judicial member stated at paragraphs 29 and 30 of her decision:
- “29 Accordingly, the decisions of the RTA were decisions that came within the terms of sub section 53(1) of the FOI Act in that they were made under s. 24 of the FOI Act and Mr Hutchinson was a person aggrieved within the terms of paragraphs 53(3)(a)(iv) and (iv).
30 In the opinion of the Tribunal, sub section 22(6) of the FOI Act cannot be interpreted to limit the operation of sections 21 and 24. Section 22 gives an agency the power to refuse to continue to deal with an FOI application where the FOI applicant had failed to pay the requested advanced deposit within the time requested. Such a refusal is distinct from the refusals set out in s.25 of the FOI Act and in the opinion of the Tribunal, Parliament has inserted sub section 22(6) to make it expressly clear that a refusal under that section is equally a reviewable decision.”
19 The Council’s case is essentially that the estimate of time that would be required to process Ms Styles request is reasonable and therefore the charges are justified. Accordingly the Council is entitled to request the deposit sought.
Ms Style’s evidence
20 Ms Styles relies on evidence set out in her affidavit and documents annexed to it. In her evidence she provides a detailed history of the events that lead to the application to the Tribunal. Her case is essentially that sections 21 and 22 of the FOI Act are discretionary provisions, not mandatory. Ms Styles asserts therefore, that the Council has discretion as to whether or not to impose charges. Ms Styles further asserts her FOI application does not include much of the material to which the Council has referred. She does not require many of the mayoral files that Mr Fisher asserts are encompassed by the request.
21 Ms Styles stated that the Council maintains a sophisticated record system and that the applicable coding allows for a quick assessment of what is contained within any particular file. Accordingly it is a relatively simple task to ascertain whether or not documents contained within the file are relevant to the request.
22 Ms Styles refutes the Council's claim that some files may contain personal information and therefore would be subject to privacy legislation. She asserted that no personal matters are contained within the Council files she seeks. In any event they would be open to public access pursuant to section 12 of the Local Government Act 1993.
23 Ms Styles referred to the decision in Chapman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 35 where the Tribunal's Deputy President Hennessy considered reasonable notice on an agency’s refusal to allow access to documents on the basis that it would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency away from its other operations. At paragraphs 46 to 48 of her decision that the Deputy President stated:
- “46 There are a number of relevant considerations when determining whether an Agency has correctly refused access under s.25 (1)(a1):
- the number of documents requested, estimated or known;
- the time required to locate, identify and schedule documents; and
- the time to engage in consultation with third parties and determine whether or not to grant access.
47 In the present case the Agency submits that the processing would take a minimum of nine hours. In all of the cases cited, there is a request for numerous documents. This is a significantly less period of time than the estimates in the cases cited above. In the present application only one document is subject to the unreasonable diversion claim, although this document once transcribed will be lengthy. The authorities have considered the time required and the difficulty in locating the document. The fact that the Agency has previously located the VKG log suggests that there would not be any difficulty in locating the document.
48 Given the relatively short time it would take to process the Applicant’s request (even considering the possibility of having to consult with third parties) it is not a substantial or unreasonable diversion of the Agency resources to process the Applicant’s request”.
24 Ms Styles referred to clause 5 (2) of the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Order 1989 and submitted that the Council is not entitled to charge for the first 20 hours during which it dealt with her application. She further submitted that the onus is on the Council to show that it was the first 20 hours, and not some subsequent 20 hours, to which no charge is being applied.
25 She stated that she was given access to some documents pursuant to and request for access under section 12 of the Local Government Act 1993 however she had not been given a copy of the documents. She argues that the request for a deposit defeats the purpose of the legislation.
Decision
26 I agree with the views of Judicial Member Higgins in Hutchinson v Director General, Roads and Traffic Authority that had been referred to above. Accordingly I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction determine this matter.
27 On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Council has reasonably assessed the extent of the work that would be required to process Ms Styles request. While I accept that Ms Styles may not have intended that the scope of her request would be as wide as the Council has interpreted it, I agree with the Council's interpretation. I also agree that the Council would be obligated to undertake a reasonable assessment of the material contained within specifically identified files to determine whether or not they contain personal information which might be subject to privacy legislation. It would also be necessary for the Council to undertake a review of many other files in order to ascertain whether may contain any documents that fall within the clear words of Ms Styles request.
28 It follows that I am satisfied that the Council's assessment of the time that would be required to process Ms Styles request is reasonable. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the Council has met the requirements of section 21 of the FOI Act. While it is under no obligation to require an advance deposit, the Council is clearly entitled to request such a deposit. It is equally clear that the Council is entitled to refuse to continue dealing with an application if it has requested payment of an advance deposit in relation to the application and payment of the deposit has not been made within the period of time specified in the request. In this case the Council requested a deposit, and specified a period of time in which the deposit was to be paid. Ms Styles did not meet the request and therefore the Council was entitled to refuse to continue processing her request.
29 In my view there is no merit in Ms Styles' submission that the Council has not proven that the allowance for 20 hours of processing time applies to the first 20 hours and not some subsequent 20 hours. Nor do I accept her submission that the request for a deposit defeats the purposes of the legislation. It is open to Ms Styles to vary her request in such a way that she obtains access to the documents that she seeks. I note that Ms Styles has made an application to the Council pursuant to section 12 of the Local Government Act1993 and that through that application she is able to access much of the material sought at no charge. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the issues that she raised in relation to that application.
30 Having formed these views, it follows that the Council's decision should be a affirmed.
Decision
1. The decision by the Wollondilly Shire Council to refuse to continue dealing with the Freedom of Information application lodged by Ms Styles is affirmed
Revised 20/9/2004 – Paragraph17 – clerical error corrected; Paragraph 19 – clerical error corrected – now paragraph 23.
2
2
4