O’Grady v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWCATAD 253

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: O'Grady v Sutherland Shire Council [2018] NSWCATAD 253 Hearing dates: 24 October 2018 Date of orders: 31 October 2018 Decision date: 31 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: (1) The proceedings are dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for being misconceived and lacking in substance.

(2) The applicant's application for costs is dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – government information – whether proceedings lacking in substance – costs. Legislation Cited: Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: Brodyn Pty Ltd v Owners Corporation – Strata Plan 73019 (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 224 Cripps v G and M Mawson [2006] NSWCA 81 Hammond v Ozzy's Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd t/as Ozzy Car Sales [2015] NSWCATAP 65 Texts Cited: M. Aronson and M. Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (5th edition, Law Book Co., 2013) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rod O'Grady (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant Self Represented Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00218513 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. On 16 June 2017 the applicant made an access application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 ("the GIPA Act") to the respondent for access to information held by it. 2. The respondent determined the application on 17 August 2017. The applicant sought internal review. On 19 September 2017 the respondent was deemed to have confirmed its decision as it failed to make an internal review decision within the requisite time. The applicant sought external review from the Information and Privacy Commission ("the Commission"). That review determined that part of the respondent's decision was not justified and recommended that the respondent make a new decision by way of internal review. 3. The respondent issued a new internal review decision on 5 April 2018. The applicant again sought external review of this decision by the Commission. On 26 June 2018 the Commission made no recommendations. 4. On 16 July 2018 the applicant sought review of the respondent's decision in this Tribunal. 5. Directions were made for the filing of submissions by the respondent on or before 18 September 2018 and by the applicant on or before 2 October 2018. 6. On 18 September 2018 the respondent released some of the outstanding information sought in the application to the applicant. 7. On 16 October 2018 the respondent wrote to the applicant stating "Council has considered your submissions and decided to release to you the remainder of the documents". The documents containing the remaining information he sought were provided in full, as well as a cheque in the sum of $200 intended as the reimbursement of the application fee to the Tribunal ($102) and his estimated out of pocket expenses.