O’Grady v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2017] NSWCATAD 360

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: O'Grady v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2017] NSWCATAD 360 Hearing dates: 23 November 2017 Date of orders: 06 December 2017 Decision date: 06 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R C Titterton, Principal Member Decision: (1) The decision of the respondent of 5 April 2017 is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Government Information – discharge of onus - legal professional privilege – allegations of delay Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Evidence Act 1995 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 State Records Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Saggers v Environment Protection Authority [2014] NSWCATAD 37 Zonnevylle v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2017] NSWCATAD 186 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rod O'Grady (Applicant) Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: S Jones (Respondent)

Self Represented (Applicant) File Number(s): 2017/00258961

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview 1. By application filed 25 August 2017, the applicant, Mr Rod O'Grady, seeks a review of two decisions of the respondent, the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation (the Department). Mr O'Grady asks that the Tribunal set aside the Department's decisions and order it to provide him with redacted portions of emails which the Department has refused to disclose. 2. The Department claims that the redacted portions of the emails contain information, including legal advice, and that those emails are protected by legal professional privilege and should not and cannot be provided to the applicant. 3. I agree. I have been provided with a copy of the unredacted emails. I am satisfied that each redacted portion of each email is the subject of a proper and valid claim of legal professional privilege. 4. For the reasons given below, the decision of the Department of 5 April 2017 is affirmed.