Hall v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 239

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hall v Roads and Maritime Services [2012] NSWADT 239 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 19 November 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: Judicial Member Naida Isenberg Decision: The decision under review is affirmed Catchwords: motor vehicle - application for address of owner Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police v Camilleri [2012] NSWADTAP 19 Flack v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 286 Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 Morgan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 42 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Colin Hall (Applicant) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) Representation: C Hall (Applicant in person) Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent) File Number(s): 123173

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1Mr Colin Hall, the applicant, engaged 'JF' to undertake some work around his pool which Mr Hall regards as defective. He wishes to contact Mr F with a view to making good the work or seeking recompense. Unfortunately he did not retain Mr F's contact details and the only information he has about him is the registration number of the motor vehicle he drove. 2On 27 July 2011 the applicant made an access application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009(GIPA Act) to the respondent for access to information regarding the most recent address of [JF] who he claimed was the owner of vehicle [number] (the access application). 3The respondent refused access to the information on the basis that, on balance, the public interest considerations against disclosure of the information outweighed the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure as disclosure of the information would involve the disclosure of an individual's personal information. 4The decision was reviewed by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), who agreed with the respondent's decision. 5The applicant seeks review of the decision.