Walker v Northern Beaches Council - [2021] NSWCATAD 251

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWCATAD 251
Hearing dates: 13 August 2020
Date of orders: 24 August 2021
Decision date: 24 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: G Sarginson Senior Member
Decision:
The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW---Access to government information---Adequacy of searches
ADMININSTRATIVE LAW---Access to government information---Production of redacted documents---Whether public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

Legislation Cited:
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Betzis v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 71
Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 138
Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullett & Anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179
DTB v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 114,
Fisher v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 44
Marist Brothers St Joseph’s College v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 288
Medlyn v Commissioner for Police [2020] NSWCATAD 125
Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34
Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association, Amalgamated Union of NSW v Director General, Premier’s Department [2002] NSWADT 277
Seremetis v Commissioner of Police; Seremetis v Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 317
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31
Thomson v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 53
Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93 at
Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWCATAD 161
Walker v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 78
Wojciechowska v Commissioner for Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173
YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247
Zonnevylle v Department of Educations and Communities [2018] NSWCATAD 139

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Philip Charles Walker (Applicant)
Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Bolger (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00064060
Publication restriction: Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) applies to the material filed by the respondent on a confidential basis; to those paragraphs of the reasons identified as [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]; to the evidence and submissions given in private before the Tribunal; and to the record of that part of the proceedings (including sound recording and transcript) conducted in private. That material is not to be released either to the applicant or the public.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for administrative review of a decision of a NSW government agency under s 100 (1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (‘the GIPA Act’).

BACKGROUND

In this decision, all references to “the respondent” include Pittwater Council and its successor, Northern Beaches Council.
The applicant and the respondent have a long history of disputation.
On 29 December 2014; 14 July 2015; and 14 December 2015 the respondent sent the applicant letters placing (or affirming) restrictions…

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 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

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: [2021] NSWCATAD 251
Decision Date: 24 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Walker versus Northern Beaches Council, the dispute centred on the adequacy of the council's search for certain government documents requested by the applicant, Mr. Walker, under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA). The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. Mr. Walker sought records relating to the council's decision-making process for a particular project, contending that the council had failed to conduct a thorough search for the requested documents and had not adequately justified its redaction of certain information.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the council's search for the requested documents was adequate and whether the public interest considerations against disclosure of the redacted information outweighed those in favour of disclosure. The court was required to determine whether the council had fulfilled its obligations under the GIPA Act and whether the redactions were justified in the context of the public interest.

The court found that the council had conducted a reasonable and thorough search for the documents in question, taking into account the resources and time available. It also concluded that the redactions made by the council were justified, as the information withheld was subject to legal professional privilege or contained sensitive information that could potentially harm the council's decision-making process. The court held that the public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour, and therefore, the redactions were appropriate. As a result, the decision under review was affirmed.

The court's decision affirmed the council's actions and upheld its decision to redact certain information from the documents provided to Mr. Walker. The case serves as a reminder to both public authorities and applicants of the importance of balancing the public interest considerations in the context of access to government information.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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:	Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2021] NSWCATAD 251
Hearing dates:	13 August 2020
Date of orders:	24 August 2021
Decision date:	24 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	G Sarginson Senior Member
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW---Access to government information---Adequacy of searches ADMININSTRATIVE LAW---Access to government information---Production of redacted documents---Whether public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh public interest considerations in favour of disclosure
Legislation Cited:	Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Betzis v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 71 Danis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 138 Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullett & Anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 13 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179 DTB v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 114, Fisher v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 44 Marist Brothers St Joseph’s College v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 288 Medlyn v Commissioner for Police [2020] NSWCATAD 125 Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34 Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association, Amalgamated Union of NSW v Director General, Premier’s Department [2002] NSWADT 277 Seremetis v Commissioner of Police; Seremetis v Department of Communities and Justice [2020] NSWCATAD 317 Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 Thomson v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 53 Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93 at Walker v Northern Beaches Council [2016] NSWCATAD 161 Walker v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 78 Wojciechowska v Commissioner for Police [2020] NSWCATAP 173 YG and GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247 Zonnevylle v Department of Educations and Communities [2018] NSWCATAD 139
Texts Cited:	Not Applicable
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Philip Charles Walker (Applicant) Northern Beaches Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: C Bolger (Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Wilshire Webb Staunton Beattie Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/00064060
Publication restriction:	Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) applies to the material filed by the respondent on a confidential basis; to those paragraphs of the reasons identified as [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]; to the evidence and submissions given in private before the Tribunal; and to the record of that part of the proceedings (including sound recording and transcript) conducted in private. That material is not to be released either to the applicant or the public.