Zonnevylle v Minister for Education - [2019] NSWCATAD 28

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zonnevylle v Minister for Education [2019] NSWCATAD 28
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 13 February 2019
Decision date: 13 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:
(1)   That part of the application for review which seeks review of:

“Breach of GIPA Act and failure to promote GIPA Act
   …Alleged offences under the Act
   Sect. 112 Improper conduct complaint
The Minister is causing the applicant a deliberate detriment = unlawful discrimination against the applicant”

   is dismissed.
(2) The proceedings are listed for directions at 2pm on 27 February 2019 concerning the filing of material by the parties relevant to a review of the respondent’s decision under s 80(e) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information –
offences – jurisdiction – reviewable decision - reasonableness of searches
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Camilleri v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 5
Smalley v Motor Accident Authority of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 318
Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67
Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 123
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Peter Zonnevylle (Applicant)
Minister for Education (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/00333885
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

The application for review

These proceedings concern an application for review by this Tribunal of a decision made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”). The application attaches an application under the GIPA Act dated 16 August 2018 addressed to the respondent, which seeks information as follows:

“Ref document ‘Dept. of Education & Training Briefing for the Minister’ DGS12/613
1. a. Copy of document and all related documents/memos/directives associated with this document including evidence provided by Hopkins, CPO DEC or other officers for this proposal.
b. Details on all recipients of this document (ie. Other Ministers, Agency executives, oversight agencies, etc who have been provided a copy of this document.

2. Documents/memos/correspondence between:
a. The Minister &
b. any DEC executives, including Bruniges/Riordan/Baily/Hopkins/Patrick/Southern

referencing or concerning Zonnevylle.
3.   Correspondence received by the Minister from DET/DEC or from any other agencies/Ministers/concerning Zonnevylle.
4.   Documents between the Minister and the Premier & Cabinet concerning Zonnevyllle
5.   Complaints the Minister received concerning:
a.   Workplace Supplies Tender 1006c
b.   Tender: DETPR-35-11
c.   Tender: DECPR-02-12
d.   Premiers Memorandum 2006/11
e.   DET/DEC procurement activities
6.    Documents identifying any Education Minister’s staff who dealt with any matters related to Zonnevylle when Picolli was Education Minister and the current Minister.
Period for the above items: Between 2010 and June 2018
7.   Correspondence/documents received by the Minister’s office from Zonnevylle
8.   Documents related to Australia Post item No 4961 8893 1012
Above documents to show which Ministerial staff took possession of items 7 & 8.

9. Documents…

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 Zonnevylle v Minister for Education 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: [2019] NSWCATAD 28
Decision Date: 13 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Zonnevylle, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Education, the respondent. The applicant alleged that the Minister had breached the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), committed offences under the Act, engaged in improper conduct, and caused the applicant a deliberate detriment amounting to unlawful discrimination. The court was tasked with determining whether the decision to deny access to information under the GIPA Act was reviewable and whether the searches conducted by the Minister were reasonable.

The court first examined the scope of its jurisdiction to review the decision. It considered whether the Minister’s decision constituted a reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The court then assessed the reasonableness of the searches conducted by the Minister, focusing on whether they were conducted in a manner that was fair and proportionate to the objective of the search. The court also considered the applicant's allegations of improper conduct and unlawful discrimination.

In dismissing the application for review in part, the court found that the decision to deny access to information under the GIPA Act was not a reviewable decision. The court held that the searches conducted by the Minister were reasonable and did not constitute a breach of the GIPA Act. The court found that the applicant had not established the alleged offences under the Act or that the Minister had engaged in improper conduct. Finally, the court dismissed the claim of unlawful discrimination, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Minister's actions were deliberately detrimental or discriminatory in nature. The court ordered the proceedings to be listed for directions concerning the filing of material relevant to a review of the Minister's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That part of the application for review which seeks review of:

“Breach of GIPA Act and failure to promote GIPA Act

…Alleged offences under the Act

Sect. 112 Improper conduct complaint

The Minister is causing the applicant a deliberate detriment = unlawful discrimination against the applicant”

is dismissed.

(2) The proceedings are listed for directions at 2pm on 27 February 2019 concerning the filing of material by the parties relevant to a review of the respondent’s decision under s 80(e) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

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:	Zonnevylle v Minister for Education [2019] NSWCATAD 28
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	13 February 2019
Decision date:	13 February 2019
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) That part of the application for review which seeks review of: “Breach of GIPA Act and failure to promote GIPA Act …Alleged offences under the Act Sect. 112 Improper conduct complaint The Minister is causing the applicant a deliberate detriment = unlawful discrimination against the applicant” is dismissed. (2) The proceedings are listed for directions at 2pm on 27 February 2019 concerning the filing of material by the parties relevant to a review of the respondent’s decision under s 80(e) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information – offences – jurisdiction – reviewable decision - reasonableness of searches
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Camilleri v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 5 Smalley v Motor Accident Authority of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 318 Smith v Pittwater Council [2016] NSWCATAD 67 Stanley v Roads and Maritime Services (NSW) [2014] NSWCATAD 123
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Peter Zonnevylle (Applicant) Minister for Education (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/00333885
Publication restriction:	Nil