Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Webb v Port Stephens Council [2020] NSWCATAD 91 Hearing dates: 4 & 5 October 2018 Date of orders: 24 March 2020 Decision date: 24 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s reviewable decisions.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Freedom of information — Access to information – GIPA – LPP – open access information - sufficiency of searches – reasonable basis for belief - reasonableness of searches Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009Cases Cited: Amos v Central Coast Council [2018] NSWCATAD 101
Beesly v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 52
Camilleri v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5
Cianfrano v Director General Department of Commerce and anor (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 195
Hemeon v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 201
Hutchinson v Walcha Shire Council [2015] NSWCATAD 132
Miriani v Commissioner of New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 187
Public Service Assn v Premier’s Department [2002] NSWADT 277
Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2014] NSWCATAD 37
Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning [1994] QICmr 7; (1994) 1 QAR 464
Robinson v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAP 73
Waterford v Commonwealth of Australia [1987] HCA 25; (1987) 163 CLR 54
Webb v Port Stephens Council [2017] NSWCATAD 348
Webb v Port Stephens Council [2018] NSWCATAP 224Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Telina Webb (Applicant)
Port Stephens Council (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self represented)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00119922 & 2018/00119930 Publication restriction: Paragraph 42
reasons for decision
Background
-
This decision encompasses the Tribunal’s review of two separate applications made by Telina Webb (the Applicant) regarding determinations made by Port Stephens Council (the Respondent).
-
By application filed 16 April 2018 the Applicant sought review of the Respondent’s determination dated 6 April 2018 under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) for the production of documents relating to Development Application 483/2011 and Land and Environment Court proceedings 2012/10678 (Application 119922). The Respondent’s determination identified 9 documents falling within the scope of the application. Of those 9 documents:
2 documents were released to the Applicant in full;
1 document was released to the Applicant in part; and
access was refused to the remaining 6 documents on the basis that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure.
-
The Applicant also filed an additional application on 16 April 2018 seeking review of the Respondent’s determination dated 23 February 2018 under the GIPA Act for the production of documents relating to Code of Conduct Reports on four separate current and former employees of the Respondent (Application 119930). The Respondent’s determination identified 79 documents falling within the scope of the application. Of…
Continue reading Webb v Port Stephens Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Webb v Port Stephens Council [2020] NSWCATAD 91
- Case
- [2020] NSWCATAD 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission had to determine if the searches performed by the Council were adequate in scope and depth to satisfy the requirements of the GIPA Act. This involved assessing whether the searches were conducted with a reasonable basis for belief that the information existed and whether the Council acted reasonably in its duty to locate and disclose the information. The applicant argued that the Council's searches were insufficient and not conducted in good faith, while the Council maintained that it had acted appropriately and in compliance with its obligations under the Act.
In its decision, the Commission found that the Council had undertaken reasonable searches for the information requested. It considered the nature and complexity of the information sought, the resources available to the Council, and the steps taken to locate the documents. The Commission concluded that the Council had a reasonable basis for its belief that the searches were sufficient and that it had acted in good faith. The Commission rejected the applicant's claims and affirmed the Council's reviewable decisions, finding that the searches were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the GIPA Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s reviewable decisions.
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.