NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Manning v Bathurst Regional Council [2018] NSWCATAD 176 Hearing dates: 31 July 2018 Date of orders: 08 August 2018 Decision date: 08 August 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision to require an advance deposit is affirmed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information – fees and charges - where agency required the payment of an advance deposit – how deposit should be calculated - whether financial hardship can be considered in estimating the processing charges – whether advance deposit should be set aside Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1998 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Regulation 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151 Page v Southern Cross University [2017] NSWCATAP 89 Shoebridge v Office of Environment and Heritage [2017] NSWCATAD 275 Shoebridge v Office of Environment and Heritage [2018] NSWCATAP 144 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bhakti Manning (Applicant) Bathurst Regional Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr J R Willis (Respondent)
Solicitors: McIntosh McPhillamy & Co (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00312153 Publication restriction: Nil
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate