Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2023] NSWCATAD 290 Hearing dates: 17 July 2023 Date of orders: 03 November 2023 Decision date: 03 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Higgins, Senior Member Decision: The applicant’s application, made on 28 June 2023, for approval under s 110(1) of the GIPA Act, of his proposed access application is refused.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – access to government information – applicant subject to a 2015 restraint order under s 110(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 that restrains him from making an access application without the approval of the Tribunal – application of the applicant to make an access application to the respondent – application refused on the grounds the application lacks merit, is misconceived and is lacking in substance
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Act 2018 (NSW) (repealed)
Cases Cited: Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481
BDK v Department of Education and Communities [2015] NSWCATAP 129
Fernley v Health Care Complaints Commission [2020] NSWCATAD 30
Walker v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 78
Texts Cited: None Cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Philip Walker (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Respondent (in house solicitor)
File Number(s): 2023/00206892
reasons for decision
-
The applicant (Philip Walker) has made an application, under s 110(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act), seeking the Tribunal’s approval to make an access application, under s 41 of the GIPA, to the respondent (Northern Beaches Council), in the following terms:
The LIST of communications with the NBC over the last five years, including GIPA Applications up to 30.6.23, with search words P. WALKER, Phil WALKER, Phil WALKER, the Sec Friends of Mona Vale Phil Walker.
-
The approval of the Tribunal is sought because the applicant remains subject to a restraint order made under s 110(1) of the GIPA Act: Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34 (2015 Restraint Order Decision). That order was made, on the application of the former Pittwater Council, on 10 March 2015.
-
On 12 May 2016, Pittwater Council, Manly Council and Warringah Councils were amalgamated into a new council, the Northern Beaches Council: Local Government (Council Amalgamations) Proclamation 2016 cl 34. In Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWCATAD 277 at [9], the Tribunal accepted that, by reason of the transitional provision in cl 34(2)(b) of that Proclamation, the 2015 restraining order made by the Tribunal now restrains the applicant from making an access application to the respondent without the approval of the Tribunal.
-
The applicant’s application came before me at a case conference on 17 July 2023. The applicant appeared in person and the respondent appeared by audio link. Written and oral submissions were provided by the applicant and the respondent.
-
The…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Walker v Northern Beaches 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWCATAD 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for approval to make an access application should be granted. This involved interpreting the scope and effect of the restraint order and determining whether the applicant's proposed access application met the necessary criteria for approval under the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to assess the merits, substance, and conception of the proposed access application in light of the restraint order.
The court examined the provisions of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and the terms of the restraint order. It found that the applicant's proposed access application did not meet the criteria for approval as it lacked merit, was misconceived, and was lacking in substance. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed access application was justified or that it met the necessary legal standards. As a result, the court upheld the council's decision to refuse the applicant's application for approval.
The court's decision resulted in the refusal of the applicant's application for approval of his proposed access application. The court found that the application was lacking in merit, was misconceived, and did not meet the necessary criteria for approval under the Act. The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the terms of the restraint order.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant’s application, made on 28 June 2023, for approval under s 110(1) of the GIPA Act, of his proposed access application is refused.
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.