Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 67

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 67 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 17 March 2021 Decision date: 17 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R L Hamilton SC, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision of the agency on the original application is affirmed. (2) The matter is remitted to the respondent to consider and decide within 28 days of publication of these reasons whether to provide the applicant with the list of information prepared by it in response to the original application. Catchwords: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION – refusal by agency to deal with application as valid – sec 41(1)(e) GIPA Act- meaning of 'reasonably necessary information' in application Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Cases Cited: Department of Communities and Justice v Zonnevylle 2020 NSW CATAP 126 and [2019] NSWCAT 215 (first instance) Mulley v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341. Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ivan Jeray (Applicant) Blue Mountains City Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) File Number(s): 2020/00300586 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This matter concerns an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) which relates the "North Face 100/Ultra Trail event" which has been an annual Activity in the local government area controlled by the respondent Council (agency). The agency has refused to deal with the application on the basis that it is invalid under section 41 (1) (e) of the GIPA Act because it is considered there is insufficient information in it for the agency to identify the records being sought. The parties have agreed that the matter is suitable to be dealt with on the papers. 2. The terms of the application were as follows "All records concerning the North Face 100/Ultra Trail event. If there are many records please provide me with an index of records held so that I may select the documents required". 3. The original application was rejected on the above-mentioned ground shortly after it was lodged. The applicant was advised of the reasons (sec 52 GIPA Act), and invited to amend his application so that it could become valid, together with information required to assist Council in finding the information. Shortly afterwards the applicant slightly amended by substituting in his request "a list" of documents for "an index". 4. The applicant declined the agency's request for further information and sought that the original decision be internally reviewed. He then sought an external review of the decision by the Information and Privacy Commission. This was done by the Information and Privacy Commissioner which upheld the original decision 5. The matter is now before the Tribunal for administrative review. The issue before me is whether the Council was correct to decide that the GIPA application was not valid by reason of provisions of sec 41(1)(e) of the GIPA Act.