Webb v Port Stephens Council - [2025] NSWCATAD 30

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Webb v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWCATAD 30
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 31 January 2025
Decision date: 31 January 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J Sullivan, Senior Member
Decision:
The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are affirmed.

Catchwords:
ACCESS TO INFORMATION – conclusive presumption against disclosure – excluded information – information “related to the complaint handling and investigative functions of office of the Information Commissioner”

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Beregi v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 253
Beregi v Department of Planning Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAP 185
Edwards v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWCA 187
Jeray v Information and Privacy Commission [2024] NSWCATAP 239
Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235
Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and the Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Telina Webb (Applicant)
Port Stephens Council (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (Self-Represented)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00315254
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or disclosure of the parts of these reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent Council, is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The GIPA Application

Telina Webb (the Applicant) applied to Port Stephens Council (the Council) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) on 8 May 2024 (the GIPA Application), asking for the following information:

This Formal Access Application requests a full and unedited copy of the documents attached to Tony Wickham’s false and misleading letter to an Investigating Officer of the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, dated 17^th March 2015

Mr Wickham was the General Manager of the Council.
The “letter” dated 17 March 2015 referred to in the request was actually an email of the same date. The Applicant had a copy of the email (but not the attachments), because she sent it to the Council on 31 May 2024 when they asked for clarification. The Applicant says (AS[38]) that the covering email was provided unredacted and in full to the Applicant by the Council’s solicitor in July 2018. In any event, the email itself was not requested under the GIPA Application.

Background to the 17 March 2015 email

In 2015, Paul McEwan (the Applicant’s husband) lodged a complaint about the Council with the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC). The complaint was about actions of the Council relating to another information request.
On 9 March 2015, the IPC wrote to the Council requesting information regarding the complaint.
On 17 March 2015, Mr Wickham sent the email to the IPC in response to that request (the Email),…

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 Webb v Port Stephens 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: [2025] NSWCATAD 30
Decision Date: 31 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Webb v Port Stephens Council involved the applicant, Webb, seeking access to certain documents held by the respondent, Port Stephens Council. The applicant contended that the Council had improperly withheld information, which was pertinent to a complaint she had lodged against the Council. The dispute was brought before the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which had jurisdiction to review administrative decisions pertaining to access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW).

The court was tasked with determining whether the Council had correctly applied the provisions of the Act when it withheld specific information from the applicant. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Act and the application of the conclusive presumption against disclosure of information related to the complaint handling and investigative functions of the office of the Information Commissioner. The court needed to assess whether the information in question fell within the scope of the exclusions provided by the Act and, if so, whether the Council's decision to withhold it was justified.

The court carefully examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to interpret the scope of the exclusions. It concluded that the information sought by the applicant was indeed related to the complaint handling and investigative functions of the Information Commissioner's office. The court found that the Council had correctly applied the conclusive presumption against disclosure as outlined in the Act. Consequently, the court upheld the Council's decision to withhold the information, affirming the Council's administrative decision.

The court's decision was unequivocal in affirming the Council's actions, thereby dismissing the applicant's appeal. The court held that the Council had properly exercised its discretion under the Act and had not erred in its application of the law. The final orders of the court were to affirm the decisions of the Council, thereby concluding the matter in favour of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are 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:	Webb v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWCATAD 30
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	31 January 2025
Decision date:	31 January 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J Sullivan, Senior Member
Decision:	The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are affirmed.
Catchwords:	ACCESS TO INFORMATION – conclusive presumption against disclosure – excluded information – information “related to the complaint handling and investigative functions of office of the Information Commissioner”
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Beregi v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2019] NSWCATAD 253 Beregi v Department of Planning Industry and Environment [2020] NSWCATAP 185 Edwards v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWCA 187 Jeray v Information and Privacy Commission [2024] NSWCATAP 239 Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235 Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and the Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Telina Webb (Applicant) Port Stephens Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-Represented) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00315254
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or disclosure of the parts of these reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent Council, is prohibited.