Taylor v Mid-Coast Council [2019] NSWCATAD 92

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v Mid-Coast Council [2019] NSWCATAD 92 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 23 May 2019 Decision date: 23 May 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: G Blake AM SC, Senior Member Decision: 1. The decision of the respondent to refuse access to the applicant to the statutory declaration accompanying the letter dated 17 April 2018 from Coastplan Consulting to the respondent regarding the use of land at Lot 10 DP 1230599 is set aside and in substitution for this decision make the decision that the respondent is to provide to the applicant access to the statutory declaration with the redactions specified in paragraph 43 of these reasons for decision. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Government Information (Public Access) – application for review by person aggrieved by decision to refuse to release information – public interest considerations Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Government Information Public Access Act 2009 (NSW) Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) Cases Cited: Flack v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 286 Miskelly v Secretary, Department of Education [2019] NSWCATAD 48 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Steven Taylor (Applicant) Mid-Coast Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Local Government Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00045457

REASONS FOR DECISION

Summary 1. The applicant, Steven Taylor, seeks an administrative review pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act) of the decision made on 11 January 2019 of the respondent, Mid-Coast Council, so far as it is to refuse access pursuant to the GIPA Act to the statutory declaration accompanying the letter dated 17 April 2018 from Coastplan Consulting to the respondent regarding the use of land at Lot 10 DP 1230599 (the statutory declaration, the Coastplan letter and the Second Decision respectively). 2. I am satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to provide access to the statutory declaration with personal information redacted. Accordingly, I set aside the Second Decision and in substitution for the Second Decision decide that the respondent should provide to the applicant access to the statutory declaration with the redactions specified in paragraph 43 below.