Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Tebbutt v Minister for Lands and Water [2015] NSWCATAD 95 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 12 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent’s name is to be changed to Minister for Lands and Water.
2. The respondent’s decision to refuse to provide access to the redacted information at pages 9-12, 19, 43, 86, 93-95, 131, 137, 203, 205 and 207 of the respondent’s materials, filed on 19 December 2014, and to refuse to provide access to that information where it is duplicated in the respondent’s materials, is affirmed.
3. The respondent’s decision to refuse to provide access to the redacted information at page 119 of the respondent’s materials, filed on 19 December 2014, is set aside, and, in substitution, a decision is made to provide the applicants with access to that information.Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - Conclusive presumption of overriding public interest against disclosure – Information that would be privileged from production on the ground of client legal privilege – Meaning of “client” – Whether a Minister is the State for the purposes of the definition of “client” in the Evidence Act 1995
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION - Conclusive presumption of overriding public interest against disclosure – Information subject to parliamentary privilege – Scope of parliamentary privilege - Whether information in house notes prepared for a standing committee is subject to parliamentary privilegeLegislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Administrative Arrangements (Administrative Changes—Ministers) Order 2015 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Crown Proceedings Act 1988 (NSW)
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW)
Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth)
Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will and Mary Sess 2 c 2) (Imp)
Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW)Cases Cited: Starr v Superannuation Administration Corporation [2015] NSWCATAD 76
Fitzpatrick v NSW Office of Liquor and Gaming [2010] NSWADT 72
Colefax v Department of Education and Communities [2013] NSWADT 75
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
Re OPEL Networks Pty Ltd (in liq) (2010) 77 NSWLR 128
Stewart v Ronalds (2009) 76 NSWLR 99
Hamilton v Al Fayed [1999] 3 All ER 317
Rowan v Cornwall (No 5) [2002] SASC 160
Sportsbet Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (No 3) (2009) 262 ALR 27
R v Murphy (1986) 5 NSWLR 18
R v Theophanous (2003) 141 A Crim R 216
R v Jackson; R v Hakim (1987) 8 NSWLR 116
Slipper v Magistrates Court of the ACT (2014) 179 ACTR 1
Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1994] 3 All ER 407Category: Principal judgment Parties: Martin Tebbutt (First Applicant)
Marion Tebbutt (Second Applicant)
Minister for Lands and Water (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors
M Tebbutt and M Tebbutt (Applicants in person)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 1410494
reasons for decision
-
The applicants applied under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) ("GIPA Act") for access…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tebbutt v Minister for Lands and Water 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] NSWCATAD 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether a Minister could be considered the State for the purposes of defining "client" in the Evidence Act, and whether information in house notes prepared for a standing committee was subject to parliamentary privilege. In determining these issues, the court found that a Minister could indeed be regarded as the State, and thus information privileged by client legal privilege could not be disclosed. Regarding parliamentary privilege, the court held that information in house notes prepared for a standing committee was subject to parliamentary privilege, and therefore, it could not be disclosed under the GIPA Act.
Consequently, the court upheld the Minister's decision to withhold certain redacted information, affirming the respondent's decision in that regard. However, the court set aside the Minister's decision to withhold information found on page 119 of the respondent's materials, substituting a decision to provide the applicants with access to that information. The court's final orders included correcting the respondent's name to Minister for Lands and Water and affirming the withholding of specified redacted information, while also ordering the disclosure of the information on page 119.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent’s name is to be changed to Minister for Lands and Water.
2. The respondent’s decision to refuse to provide access to the redacted information at pages 9-12, 19, 43, 86, 93-95, 131, 137, 203, 205 and 207 of the respondent’s materials, filed on 19 December 2014, and to refuse to provide access to that information where it is duplicated in the respondent’s materials, is affirmed.
3. The respondent’s decision to refuse to provide access to the redacted information at page 119 of the respondent’s materials, filed on 19 December 2014, is set aside, and, in substitution, a decision is made to provide the applicants with access to that information.
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.