Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Webb v Port Stephens Council [2017] NSWCATAD 348 Hearing dates: 23 August 2017 Date of orders: 29 November 2017 Decision date: 29 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in Claim 201700146393.
(2) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in Claim 201700089292.
(3) In respect of 201700089313 the non-personal information within the line entries marked as personal information of third parties, for which the respondent has applied an overriding public interest against disclosure, shall be released to the applicant 28 days after the publication of these reasons. Those entries are to be released except in so far as they name members of the public who are not council employees, identifying information such as addresses, phone numbers or references that would otherwise constructively identify those persons.
(4) In Claim 201700089311 (in respect of the non LLP claimed matters), the respondent is to release the signature to the correspondence dated 23 November 2011, 28 days after the publication of these reasons. The decision is otherwise affirmed.
(5) In respect of claim 201700146396 the e mail identified in paragraph 78 of the Confidential Reasons shall be released 28 days after publication of these reasons. I also direct that the respondent review the matter in accordance with the terms of paragraph 81 of the Confidential Reasons within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons and advise the Tribunal whether any further information is forthcoming. The respondent has liberty to apply on this point. The decision is otherwise affirmed.
(6) In respect of claim 201700146399 (the e mail identified in paragraph 79 of the Confidential Reasons shall be released 28 Days after publication of these reasons. I also direct that the respondent review the matter in accordance with the terms of paragraph 81 of the Confidential Reasons within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons and advise the Tribunal whether any further information is forthcoming. The respondent has liberty to apply on this point. The decision is otherwise affirmed.Catchwords: GIPA Act – Government Information – Access – Confidential evidence – Legal professional privilege – Waiver of privilege – Circumstances where privilege waived - Decisions substantially affirmed – Weight of evidence – Public interest considerations against disclosure – Sufficiency of evidence to override general presumption. Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Environmental Assessment Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998Cases Cited: Shepherd and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning (1994) 1 QAR 464
McClymont v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 202
Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Director General, Department of Education & Training v Mullett & anor (GD) [2002] NSWADTAP 13
Hutchinson v Walcha Shire Council [2015] NSWCATAD 132
Webb v Port Stephens Council [2017] NSWCATAD 271Category:
Continue reading Webb v Port Stephens Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Webb v Port Stephens Council [2017] NSWCATAD 348
- Case
- [2017] NSWCATAD 348
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Council had properly identified and applied the legal professional privilege and overriding public interest exemptions. The court had to examine whether the documents in question were indeed privileged and whether the public interest in withholding them outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Council had appropriately assessed the weight of the evidence and public interest considerations in its decision-making process.
The Tribunal found that the Council had correctly identified and applied the exemptions in most instances. The court held that the documents contained privileged legal advice and that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality was sufficient to override the presumption in favour of disclosure. However, the Tribunal also found that certain non-personal information could be disclosed without compromising the privilege or public interest. The Tribunal affirmed most of the Council's decisions but directed the release of specific non-personal information within certain documents. The Tribunal further directed the Council to review certain matters and report back within a specified timeframe.
In summary, the Tribunal largely affirmed the Council's decisions but ordered the release of specific non-personal information from certain documents and directed the Council to review certain matters. The Tribunal found that the Council had appropriately applied the relevant exemptions and weighed the evidence and public interest considerations. The Tribunal's decision was thus to affirm the Council's decisions in most respects, with specific directions for the release of certain information and further review.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in Claim 201700146393.
(2) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in Claim 201700089292.
(3) In respect of 201700089313 the non-personal information within the line entries marked as personal information of third parties, for which the respondent has applied an overriding public interest against disclosure, shall be released to the applicant 28 days after the publication of these reasons. Those entries are to be released except in so far as they name members of the public who are not council employees, identifying information such as addresses, phone numbers or references that would otherwise constructively identify those persons.
(4) In Claim 201700089311 (in respect of the non LLP claimed matters), the respondent is to release the signature to the correspondence dated 23 November 2011, 28 days after the publication of these reasons. The decision is otherwise affirmed.
(5) In respect of claim 201700146396 the e mail identified in paragraph 78 of the Confidential Reasons shall be released 28 days after publication of these reasons. I also direct that the respondent review the matter in accordance with the terms of paragraph 81 of the Confidential Reasons within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons and advise the Tribunal whether any further information is forthcoming. The respondent has liberty to apply on this point. The decision is otherwise affirmed.
(6) In respect of claim 201700146399 (the e mail identified in paragraph 79 of the Confidential Reasons shall be released 28 Days after publication of these reasons. I also direct that the respondent review the matter in accordance with the terms of paragraph 81 of the Confidential Reasons within 28 days of the date of publication of these reasons and advise the Tribunal whether any further information is forthcoming. The respondent has liberty to apply on this point. The decision is otherwise 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.