Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services - [2017] NSWCATAD 201

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 201
Hearing dates: 12 May 2017
Date of orders: 21 June 2017
Decision date: 21 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:
1.The decision under review is affirmed.
2. The publication or disclosure to the Applicant or the public of the paragraphs in these reasons identified as '[not for publication]' is prohibited under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Government information – - overriding public interest against disclosure - whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice a system or procedure for protecting property – whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to facilitate a terrorist attack
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 64(1)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ss 14 cl 2(e) and (f), 58(1)(d), 107(1) and (2)
Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002
Cases Cited: Cui v Leichhardt Council [2006] NSWADT 298
Electoral Commissioner, State Electoral Office v McCabe (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 28
Hutchinson v Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW [2006] NSWADT 147
Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67 Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Roads and Maritime Services
Matt Wordsworth
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr N J Williams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
Mr M McKinnon (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2016/00378188
Publication restriction: The publication or disclosure of those paragraphs of these reasons identified as '[not for publication]' is prohibited under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Those paragraphs are not to be released to the Applicant or the public.

reasons for decision

The application

On 23 May 2016 the applicant applied to the respondent for access under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”) to “documents regarding fatigue studies and/or engineering assessments of the Sydney Harbour Bridge since January 1, 2013”. Subsequently he clarified that his request was for “major technical engineering assessments / studies affecting the entire structure” of the Bridge.
The application was determined by the respondent on 21 June 2016. The reasons for decision identified a report drafted by Aurecon for the respondent dated 8 July 2013 (“the Report”) as falling within the application.
Access to the majority of the Report was refused by the respondent on the grounds that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure (s58(1)(d) of the GIPA Act). This was stated to be on the basis that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of, or prejudice any system or procedure for protecting, any place, property or vehicle (s 14 cl. 2(e)). The applicant has sought review in this Tribunal.

The issues

The respondent submits that dissemination of the withheld sections of the Report would make available to the public information about specific vulnerabilities in the Bridge’s structure, which could reasonably be expected to endanger the security of, or prejudice any system or procedure for protecting…

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 Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services 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: [2017] NSWCATAD 201
Decision Date: 21 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services, the court was tasked with considering an application for internal review of a decision made by the respondent. The applicant sought access to certain documents related to the security of toll roads, arguing that the refusal to release the information was unreasonable and unlawful. The dispute centred on the application of the overriding public interest against disclosure under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was the forum for this challenge.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent's decision to withhold specific information was justified under the Act. This required the tribunal to consider the public interest factors that weighed in favour of disclosure, against those that supported non-disclosure. In particular, the tribunal had to assess whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice a system or procedure for protecting property, or whether it could reasonably be expected to facilitate a terrorist attack. The tribunal also needed to determine whether the respondent had correctly applied the relevant criteria and whether the decision was rational and reasonable.

The tribunal found that the respondent had correctly applied the public interest considerations outlined in the Act. The information in question related to the security measures in place to protect toll roads, and the tribunal accepted that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger these measures or facilitate a terrorist attack. As such, the tribunal concluded that the respondent's decision was justified and affirmed the decision under review. The tribunal also made an order prohibiting the publication or disclosure of certain sensitive information identified in its reasons.

In summary, the tribunal upheld the respondent's decision to withhold certain information related to the security of toll roads, finding that the public interest in non-disclosure outweighed any potential benefits of disclosure. The applicant's application for internal review was dismissed, and the decision under review was affirmed. Additionally, the tribunal made an order prohibiting the publication or disclosure of certain sensitive information identified in its reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The decision under review is affirmed.

2. The publication or disclosure to the Applicant or the public of the paragraphs in these reasons identified as '[not for publication]' is prohibited under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

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:	Wordsworth v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 201
Hearing dates:	12 May 2017
Date of orders:	21 June 2017
Decision date:	21 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:	1.The decision under review is affirmed. 2. The publication or disclosure to the Applicant or the public of the paragraphs in these reasons identified as '[not for publication]' is prohibited under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Government information – - overriding public interest against disclosure - whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger or prejudice a system or procedure for protecting property – whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to facilitate a terrorist attack
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 64(1) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ss 14 cl 2(e) and (f), 58(1)(d), 107(1) and (2) Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002
Cases Cited:	Cui v Leichhardt Council [2006] NSWADT 298 Electoral Commissioner, State Electoral Office v McCabe (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 28 Hutchinson v Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW [2006] NSWADT 147 Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67 Attorney General’s Department v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Roads and Maritime Services Matt Wordsworth
Representation:	Counsel: Mr N J Williams (Respondent) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent) Mr M McKinnon (Applicant)
File Number(s):	2016/00378188
Publication restriction:	The publication or disclosure of those paragraphs of these reasons identified as '[not for publication]' is prohibited under s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Those paragraphs are not to be released to the Applicant or the public.