Manning v Bathurst Regional Council (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 177

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Manning v Bathurst Regional Council (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 177 Hearing dates: 31 July 2018 Date of orders: 31 July 2018 Decision date: 31 July 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: The proceedings are dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information - - where same issue determined in earlier proceedings – application for review lacking in substance . Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 18 Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 132 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms Bhakti Manning (Applicant) Bathurst Regional Council ( Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr J R Willis (Respondent)

Solicitors: McIntosh McPhillamy & Co (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00387712 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. These proceedings came before the Tribunal on 31 July 2018. After hearing from the parties I made an order dismissing the proceedings. These are my written reasons. 2. On 22 December 2017 the applicant filed the application in these proceedings. The grounds were stated to be: "Same as under Case 2017/00247030. In submissions dated 14.11.17 I intimated at points 7-9 (copy attached) that I would be putting in an application for review of this later decision (NOD 2) if Council did not agree to drop the threshold issue of scope. Council declined to do so. I found this out only at yesterday's directions hearing." 1. On 27 June 2018 I had delivered a decision in Proceedings 2017/00247030 (Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 132). The applicant and respondent in those proceedings were the same as in the current proceedings. 2. An earlier decision by Senior Member Lucy in Proceedings 2017/00247030 (Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 18) had dismissed part of the same application in dealing with the "threshold issue of scope" referred to in the grounds above. Also an order was made that the evidence in each of Proceedings 2017/00247030, these proceedings and Proceedings 2017/312153 were to be evidence in all three proceedings. 3. In my decision of 27 June 2018 I affirmed the decision of the respondent concerning the applicant's application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act). 4. On reviewing the papers and in consultation with the parties at the hearing of these proceedings on 31 July 2018, it became apparent that the information in issue in both proceedings was the same, the only difference in the applications being that the application in these proceedings sought the documents "in full" whereas the application in 2017/00247030 sought a section of those documents "discussing the reason why Council is considering the purpose of 9 McKell Street". 5. Before the Tribunal, Ms Manning accepted that the information was the same and that the issue of access to those documents in full had effectively been determined in the earlier decision. 6. In these circumstances, it was apparent that by virtue of the earlier decision, these proceedings are now lacking in substance (s.55(1)(b) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ). Neither party raised an objection to these proceedings being dismissed, and I have concluded that this is the appropriate decision to make.