Woolley v Lismore City Council - [2013] NSWADT 10

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10
Hearing dates: 19 November 2011, 16 and 26 July 2012
Decision date: 16 January 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: S Higgins, Deputy President
Decision:
1.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Dr Taylor's report and his email of 23 February 2005 (document 44 and annexure B to document 69) is affirmed.
2.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Mr Harrison's correspondence and his report (document 43, 50 and 69) which, if disclosed, will reveal the substance of the legal advice of Dr Taylor is affirmed.
3.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information that is the name of AB and other officers of the respondent is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information.
4.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in the body of the Memorandum dated 4 March 2005 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information.
5.The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining information in the body of document 53, 63, 66, 69 (i.e. the report and annexures B, E, F and G) is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to this information under paragraph 72(1)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.
6.Further to order 3 and 4 above, the respondent to provide the applicants with a full copy of the Memorandum of 4 March 2005 and a further copy of document 43, 44, 47 and 60 with the name of AB and the other officers of the respondent disclosed.

Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)(repealed)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1998
Local Government Act 1993
Cases Cited: Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR180
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19
Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1
McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44
McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45
Osland v Secretary of the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ian Craig Woolley (First applicant)
Lynette June Woolley (Second applicant)
Lismore City Council (Respondent)
Representation: Grahams Solicitors (Applicants)
McCartney Young Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 113066

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

This is an application by Mr and Mrs Woolley (the applicants) seeking review of a decision of the Lismore City Council (the respondent), made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (The GIPA Act), in regard to their request for access to information held by the respondent.

On 27 August 2010, the applicants, through their solicitor, sought access to the information in the following documents:

All documents, reports, files relating to the investigation into the conduct of [AB] in…

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 Woolley v Lismore 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: [2013] NSWADT 10
Decision Date: 16 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolley v Lismore City Council involved the applicants seeking access to certain information held by the council under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The applicants argued that the council had unlawfully refused to provide them with specific documents and information related to a planning decision. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the council had correctly exercised its discretion under the Act in refusing to disclose certain information to the applicants. The applicants contended that the information was relevant to their understanding of the planning decision and was necessary for them to effectively participate in the review process. The council argued that the disclosure of the information would breach the confidentiality of legal advice and the identity of certain officers.

The court held that the council had exercised its discretion appropriately in refusing to disclose some of the information, particularly that which revealed the substance of legal advice or the identity of council officers. However, the court found that the council had erred in refusing to disclose other information, including the name of a council officer and the content of a memorandum related to the planning decision. The court determined that the public interest in access to this information outweighed any potential harm to the council or the individuals involved.

Consequently, the court affirmed the council's decision to withhold some information, while setting aside the council's decision to withhold other information and ordering the council to provide access to that information. The court also ordered the council to provide certain documents to the applicants with some redactions to protect the identity of council officers. The orders reflected a careful balancing of the applicants' right to access information against the council's legitimate interests in maintaining confidentiality and protecting individuals' privacy.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Dr Taylor's report and his email of 23 February 2005 (document 44 and annexure B to document 69) is affirmed.

2.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Mr Harrison's correspondence and his report (document 43, 50 and 69) which, if disclosed, will reveal the substance of the legal advice of Dr Taylor is affirmed.

3.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information that is the name of AB and other officers of the respondent is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information.

4.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in the body of the Memorandum dated 4 March 2005 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information.

5.The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining information in the body of document 53, 63, 66, 69 (i.e. the report and annexures B, E, F and G) is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to this information under paragraph 72(1)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

6.Further to order 3 and 4 above, the respondent to provide the applicants with a full copy of the Memorandum of 4 March 2005 and a further copy of document 43, 44, 47 and 60 with the name of AB and the other officers of the respondent disclosed.

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:	Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10
Hearing dates:	19 November 2011, 16 and 26 July 2012
Decision date:	16 January 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	S Higgins, Deputy President
Decision:	1.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Dr Taylor's report and his email of 23 February 2005 (document 44 and annexure B to document 69) is affirmed. 2.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Mr Harrison's correspondence and his report (document 43, 50 and 69) which, if disclosed, will reveal the substance of the legal advice of Dr Taylor is affirmed. 3.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information that is the name of AB and other officers of the respondent is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information. 4.The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in the body of the Memorandum dated 4 March 2005 is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to that information. 5.The decision of the respondent in regard to the remaining information in the body of document 53, 63, 66, 69 (i.e. the report and annexures B, E, F and G) is set aside and in substitution thereof a decision to grant the applicants access to this information under paragraph 72(1)(a) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. 6.Further to order 3 and 4 above, the respondent to provide the applicants with a full copy of the Memorandum of 4 March 2005 and a further copy of document 43, 44, 47 and 60 with the name of AB and the other officers of the respondent disclosed.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) Freedom of Information Act 1989 (NSW)(repealed) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1998 Local Government Act 1993
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General's Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR180 Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1 McKinnon v Blacktown City Council [2012] NSWADT 44 McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45 Osland v Secretary of the Department of Justice [2008] HCA 37
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Ian Craig Woolley (First applicant) Lynette June Woolley (Second applicant) Lismore City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Grahams Solicitors (Applicants) McCartney Young Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	113066