WL v Randwick City Council - [2007] NSWADT 12

Set aside by Appeal:
Set Aside by Appeal on 5 October 2007: WL v Randwick City Council (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 58

CITATION: WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADT 12

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
WL
RESPONDENT
Randwick City Council

FILE NUMBER: 063139

HEARING DATES: On the papers

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 13 September 2006

DATE OF DECISION:
10 January 2007

BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Jurisdiction

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Local Government Act 1993
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW 31 NSWLR 606
Re Colakovski and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1991) 29 FCR 429
WL v La Trobe University (General) [2005] VCAT 2592

REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
A Seton, Solicitor

ORDERS: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 In these reasons the names of all private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. In these reasons the Applicant is referred to as WL.

2 This an application pursuant to section 55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("the Privacy Act") for a review of the conduct of the Randwick City Council in relation to its dealing with alleged personal information of WL. WL alleges that the Council being ‘a public sector agency’ as defined in the Privacy Act has contravened information protection principles (“IPPs”) contained in Division 1 of Part 2 of the Privacy Act.

Background

3 With the exception of some minor details, the background to this application is generally agreed. WL was at all relevant times the owner and lessor of the residential premises in a block of units (“the block”) in Coogee (“the Premises”). In June 2005 the Council received a complaint that renovations had been carried out on the Premises for which the complainant believed no development application had been lodged. On 7 June 2006 a Council Officer (Mr Kerr) attended the block and was allowed entry to the Premises by a person who was apparently in occupation and carrying out work there at the time. Mr Kerr took photographs of various internal and external aspects of the Premises (“the photographs”).

4 The following day, Mr Kerr had a telephone conversation with a solicitor in the employ of Bright & Duggan Pty Ltd, the Manager of the Owners Corporation for the Strata Plan within which the Premises is situated (“the Strata Managers”). He later forwarded a copy of the photographs to the solicitor.

5 On the same day the Council issued a Notice of Intention to give an Order under Section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the EPA Act”) in terms of Order No. 12. That Notice of Intention (“the Notice”) was issued by the Council and signed by Mr Kerr in his capacity as a Planning and Environment Compliance Officer. Mr Kerr subsequently forwarded a copy of the Notice to the…

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 WL v Randwick City 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: [2007] NSWADT 12
Decision Date: 10 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of WL v Randwick City Council, the applicant sought relief against the Council's decision to deny an application to build a new house on a residential property. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Ball. The applicant contended that the Council's decision was unlawful and that the court should overturn it. The Council, on the other hand, argued that the decision was made in accordance with the law and should be upheld.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings and whether the matter was one that the court had the authority to hear. The applicant argued that they had standing and that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Council contended that the applicant lacked standing and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court found that the applicant did not have standing to bring the proceedings, and therefore did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. The court held that the applicant was not an "aggrieved person" as defined by the relevant legislation, and therefore could not bring the proceedings. The court also found that the matter was not one that the court had the authority to hear, as it was outside the scope of the court's jurisdiction. As a result, the court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.

No further orders were made by the court. The applicant's application was dismissed, and the Council's decision to deny the building application stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

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.

CITATION:	WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADT 12
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT WL RESPONDENT Randwick City Council
FILE NUMBER:	063139
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	13 September 2006
DATE OF DECISION:	10 January 2007
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Local Government Act 1993 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Police v District Court of NSW 31 NSWLR 606 Re Colakovski and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1991) 29 FCR 429 WL v La Trobe University (General) [2005] VCAT 2592
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT A Seton, Solicitor
ORDERS:	The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction