Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Walker v Pittwater Council [2015] NSWCATAD 198 Hearing dates: 11 August 2015 Date of orders: 11 August 2015 Decision date: 11 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N. Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: Application to Pittwater Council dated 12 May 2015 is approved subject to it being amended to refer to the letter of 4 December 2014 from J Lofts, Manager, Environmental Compliance to Mr Walker. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – application for approval to apply for access to information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 when applicant subject to a restraint order – discretion to approve or not approve– relevant considerations include novelty, merit and frequency of requests - Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 62(2). Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW), s 110(1) Cases Cited: Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Phillip Walker (Applicant) Pittwater Council (Respondent) Representation: P Walker (Applicant in person) G Angles (Pittwater Council) (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510317 Publication restriction: Nil reasons for decision 1. Mr Walker is subject to a restraint order made by the Tribunal on 10 March 2015 under s 110(1) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act): Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34. Section 110(1) provides that: NCAT may order that a person is not permitted to make an access application without first obtaining the approval of NCAT if NCAT is satisfied that the person has made at least 3 access applications (to one or more agencies) in the previous 2 years that lack merit. Such an order is a "restraint order" . 1. After the Tribunal made the restraint order, Mr Walker applied to Pittwater Council for access to the following information under the GIPA Act: Tributyltin Pollution Pittwater Park Beach, Palm Beach sampling results all correspondence with EPA, Dept. of Health, Dept. of Environment determining safe and acceptable levels of pollution. 1. That application can only proceed if Mr Walker first obtains approval from the Tribunal: GIPA Act, s 110(1). Mr Walker sought approval and, on 11 August 2015, I gave brief oral reasons for approving the application: DEPUTY PRESIDENT HENNESSY: I am going to approve the application on the basis it is a reasonable request. It is not something that has been requested in the past, even though there is a history of applications in relation to this subject area. I do not believe it would unreasonably divert the resources of Council. I do not think it lacks merit. It is not something you have requested before, nor is the frequency of your applications a concern on this particular subject, at the moment. So that application as amended is approved . . . . that is, sampling results as foreshadowed in the letter of 4 December 2014 and correspondence again as foreshadowed in the letter of 4 December. 1. I made the following order: Application to Pittwater Council dated 12 May 2015 is approved subject to it being amended to refer to the letter of 4 December 2014 from J Lofts, Manager, Environmental Compliance to Mr Walker. 1. Mr Walker has requested written reasons for this decision: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 62(2). The oral reasons I gave, as transcribed above, constitute the reasons. These written reasons merely set out the context for that decision. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 September 2015