Tisdale v Cumberland City Council

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Tisdale v Cumberland City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 132

Hearing dates:

26 November 2020

Date of orders:

21 May 2021

Decision date:

21 May 2021

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

S Montgomery, Senior Member

Decision:

1.   Cumberland City Council is to undertake further searches to ascertain whether the General Manager’s office has any further information which may fall within the scope of the Applicant’s requests.

2.   The further searches are to be completed within 21 days of these orders and the outcome of the searches is to be advised to the Applicant and the Tribunal.

3.   The matter is listed for a further case conference on Monday 28 June 2021 at 12:30 pm.

4.   The decisions under review are otherwise affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information – access application – whether public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh public interest considerations in favour of disclosure –whether risk of harm or serious harassment or serious intimidation if disclosed – whether reasonable searches undertaken – legal privilege – conclusive presumption against disclosure.

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Australian Vaccination Network v Department of Finance & Services [2013] NSWADT 60

Dezfouli v Justice Health & Forensic Mental Health Network [2018] NSWCATAD 11

Klaric v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 153

Wojciechowska v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Terry Tisdale (Applicant)
Cumberland City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Stringybark Legal (Applicant)
Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2020/00226816; 2020/224009

Publication restriction:

Pursuant to section 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the content of the material that was filed by the Respondent on a confidential basis is not to be disclosed without further order of the Tribunal.
Those paragraphs of these reasons identified as “not for publication” are not to be released, other than to the Respondent, without further order of the Tribunal.
No record of the confidential sessions is to be disclosed, other than to the Respondent, without further order of the Tribunal.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. These applications concern two determinations by Cumberland City Council (“the Respondent” or “the Council”) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”). Mr Terry Tisdale (“the Applicant”) applied to the Respondent seeking information held by the agency.

2. The Applicant is a resident of Benaud Street Greystanes (“Benaud Street”). The information that he seeks concerns incidents that have allegedly occurred in Benaud Street and which allegedly involved the Applicant and other residents of Benaud Street.

3. The two GIPA Applications were the subject of separate determinations by the Respondent’s Access to Information Officer, Ms Julie Albazouni.

4. One of the applications sought documentation relating to a Penalty Notice (“the Penalty Notice”) issued to the Applicant by the Council in December 2019 (“the Penalty Notice GIPA”). The penalty notice was issued for an alleged offence under the Protection of…