Stephenson v Endeavour Energy [2016] NSWCATAD 189

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Stephenson v Endeavour Energy [2016] NSWCATAD 189 Hearing dates: 2 May 2016 Date of orders: 02 May 2016 Decision date: 02 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: Government information – reasonableness of search Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Claire Stephenson (Applicant) Endeavour Energy (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: C Stephenson (Applicant in person) Bartier Perry Solicitors (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510437

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Ms Stephenson made an access application to Endeavour Energy ("the Respondent") pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act"). She requested the following information: "A copy of the file and all documentation including notes, emails, voice recordings, relating to [address], Claire Stephenson & David Crawley. 1. A copy of the file and all documentation - including notes, emails, voice recordings relating to [address], Claire Stephenson and David Crawley. 2. A copy of the agreement between Mr/Mrs Schuck and Mrs Froude described as "written permission being granted to cross your neighbour's property". 3. Copy of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee - January 2010 to present. 4. Copy of the minutes of the Safety, Human Resources and Environment Committee - January 2010 to present. .. .the scope of items 3 and 4 as follows: Audit and Risk Committee - January 2010 to present Safety, Human Resources and Environment Committee - January 2010 to present Specifically I seek any material in the minutes of the above committees relating to the following - PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl CCA Chromium Copper Arsenic Arsenate Contamination Transformers Poles Transmission poles [address] Claire Stephenson David Crawley" 1. Ms Stephenson was not satisfied with the initial determination of the access application and sought internal review. An internal review was undertaken by David Neville, the Respondent's General Manager Health, Safety and Environment. Mr Neville determined to release a number of documents that were identified as falling within the scope of the request. He also found that some of the requested information could not be located. Other material that was identified by the searches undertaken in response to the access application was found to be outside of the scope of the request. 2. Ms Stephenson applied to the Tribunal for external review of the Respondent's determination. The matter was listed for a planning meeting and Ms Stephenson clarified the scope of her request. As a result, the Respondent provided her with further documents and also provided a schedule which identified those parts of the access application that remained unresolved. The Schedule identified 9 items and provided an explanation of the Respondent's position in regard to each item. 3. By letter dated 25 February 2016 Ms Stephenson advised the Respondent's solicitor, Mr Mark Paul, that the outstanding items were as follows: Item No 1. Fax dated 23/11 /2004 page 3 of the 6 page fax is missing Item No 3. Email has no content Item No 4. Document not provided Item No 5. 230209-Hartcher-Barrctt.doc. There is no mention of Hartcher-Barrett in Attachment 19 nor do the dates correspond. This document has not been provided. Item No 7. 7.1 Review and draft reply are missing. Neither the email dated 09/12/2011 nor the attachment dated 30/09/2011 are the review or draft reply referred to in email 19/12/2011-1:41pm Item No 8. The document provided is not as requested. 1. The matter came before me for hearing on 2 May 2016. On that occasion the Respondent relied on the evidence of Ms Awatef El Abed who is employed as a Paralegal with the Respondent. Ms El Abed provided a statement in which she outlined the steps that had been taken in trying to locate the information that remained in issue. Ms El Abed also attended the hearing and was cross-examined. 2. Following the hearing I determined that I was satisfied that there is no further information held by the Respondent that is captured by the scope of the access application and I affirmed the Respondent's decision. 3. The Respondent has requested written reasons for that decision. These reasons are provided in response to that request.