Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Webster v Bayside Council [2024] NSWCATAD 226 Hearing dates: 11 June 2024 Date of orders: 8 August 2024 Decision date: 08 August 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Sullivan, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision under review is set aside.
(2) The matter is remitted to the respondent which is directed to grant access to the Applicant of information not previously released in accordance with paragraph 112 of these reasons for decision.
(3) The respondent is to confirm in writing to the Tribunal, by Thursday 12 September 2024, that Order 2 has been complied with.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Access to information — GIPA – reasonableness of search – public interest considerations against disclosure – cl 3(a), 3(e) and 3(f) of the Table in s14 of the GIPA Act
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AEZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 90
AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 241
Batten v University of New England [2013] NSWADT 73
CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2016] NSWCATAD 287
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68
Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307
Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298
Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 18
Miskelly v Roads and Maritime Service [2019] NSWCATAD 133
OTB v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (2019) NSWCATAD 114
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460; [2009] HCA 16,
Sheehy v Commissioner of Police; Rapisarda v Commissioner of Police; McDonald v Commissioner of Police; Housego v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWCATAD 73
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237
Tallawoladah Pty Ltd v Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [2021] NSWCATAD 248
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daniel Webster (Applicant)
Bayside Council (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/00360277 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of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or disclosure of the parts of these reasons marked “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”, other than to the respondent [Bayside Council], is prohibited.
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
The Applicant, Mr Daniel Webster, applied to Bayside Council (Council) under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) for information held by Council, and is dissatisfied with the responses received.
-
The issues in these proceedings include:
the Council’s implied decision that it did not hold any additional information that was responsive to the request;
the Council’s decision concerning those redactions for information which it identified as being ‘out of scope’;
whether the public interest considerations against disclosure in cl 3(a), 3(e) and 3(f) of the Table…
Continue reading Webster v Bayside Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Webster v Bayside Council [2024] NSWCATAD 226
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATAD 226
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the Council's refusal to disclose the information was justified under the GIPA Act. Specifically, it needed to consider if the search conducted by the Council for the information was reasonable and if the public interest considerations against disclosure were sufficient. The central issue was whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the balance between the public interest in disclosure and the privacy interests in non-disclosure.
The court found that the Tribunal's assessment of the search conducted by the Council was flawed, as it had not adequately considered all the relevant information and public interest factors. The court held that the Tribunal should have balanced the privacy interests of individuals against the public's right to know, particularly in cases where public resources are involved. The Council's argument that disclosure would harm the reputation of individuals was deemed insufficient to outweigh the public interest in transparency and accountability. Therefore, the court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal with directions to grant Webster access to the information. The court also directed the Council to confirm compliance with the order in writing by a specified date.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The decision under review is set aside.
(2) The matter is remitted to the respondent which is directed to grant access to the Applicant of information not previously released in accordance with paragraph 112 of these reasons for decision.
(3) The respondent is to confirm in writing to the Tribunal, by Thursday 12 September 2024, that Order 2 has been complied with.
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.