Bryant v Shoalhaven City Council [2019] NSWCATAD 209

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bryant v Shoalhaven City Council [2019] NSWCATAD 209 Hearing dates: 11 September 2019 Date of orders: 14 October 2019 Decision date: 14 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION – government information – whether information held by agency – no reasonable grounds that information is held Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1998 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Cases Cited: Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] NSWADT 5 Hemeon v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 201 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Bryant (Applicant) Shoalhaven City Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (Self-represented) Respondent (Self-represented) File Number(s): 2019/00111688

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. On 16 October 2019 the applicant lodged an application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) for the following information: "I would like Shoalhaven City Council to provide the 'Subdivision Certificate and approved plans including easements' for Subdivision Development Consent SF9364 as per documents attached.' 1. The documents attached to the application included: 1. Subdivision development consents for SF9364 dated 29 December 2003; and 2. Plan 101658-03/105 dated 30 June 2003. 1. The respondent resolved not to deal with the application under s 60(1)(b) of the GIPA Act. 2. On application from the applicant, the Information Commissioner reviewed the decision and recommended a new decision be made. The respondent made a new decision under which some information was released and it determined that the subdivision certificate for SF9364 was not held by it. 3. The internal review decision by the respondent explained the reasons for this decision as follows: "The Subdivision consent issued in relation to SF9364 indicates that the consent was to lapse on 29 December 2008. As the development did not commence the subdivision approval lapsed on this date. A subdivision certificate was not issued for SF9364 as the development did not commence and the consent lapsed as explained above. You requested copies of the approved plans relating to the subdivision consent for SF9364 and I have provided both a copy of the stamped approved plan and a copy of the plan as initially lodged without the approved stamp for your reference." 1. The Information Commissioner determined that this decision was justified. 2. The applicant then applied for review of the internal review decision by the Tribunal.