In this judgment, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales examined a dispute over access to government information relating to a project in the local government area.

This case raised key issues about the adequacy of searches, the handling of personal information, and claims of copyright. The Tribunal also addressed the question of costs, highlighting the requirements for councils seeking them.

The 3 issues raised by the Applicant

Issue 1: Adequacy of Searches

The Applicant argued that Clarence Valley Council had not conducted thorough searches for documents related to a council resolution on the Treelands Drive Community Hub project. They claimed that records confirming whether the General Manager investigated “Option B” as directed by the resolution were either not searched for or not provided.

The Tribunal accepted the Council’s evidence that reasonable searches had been conducted using its electronic document management system. The Council consulted relevant staff, and it was established that no further responsive records existed. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the adequacy of the Council’s searches and affirmed its decision that the information sought was not held.

Issue 2: Redactions for Personal Information

The applicant challenged the Council’s redactions, which primarily concerned personal information, including contact details and signatures, in the released documents.

The Tribunal upheld the Council’s redactions, finding them consistent with the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act). It determined that disclosing this personal information would contravene privacy principles and that there was an overriding public interest against disclosure.

Issue 3: Claims of Copyright

The Council restricted access to architectural plans related to “Option B,” citing copyright concerns raised by a third-party architect.

The Tribunal found that the Council acted within its rights under the GIPA Act by allowing the applicant to inspect the plans at its offices instead of providing copies. This approach balanced the applicant’s access rights with the protection of third-party copyright.

Costs: No Special Circumstances Found

The Council sought costs from the applicant, arguing that it had put them on notice regarding potential cost orders.

The Tribunal emphasised that the general rule is that each party bears its own costs unless special circumstances warrant a departure.

It determined that putting the applicant on notice was insufficient to establish such circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant, a self-represented party, had raised legitimate concerns, even though some of their claims were misconceived.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to award costs to the Council.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of thorough recordkeeping and robust search processes for local councils responding to GIPA applications. It also clarifies the balance required when redacting personal information and managing copyright concerns.

On the matter of costs, it is necessary for either a local council or applicant to demonstrate “special circumstances” to succeed in cost claims. Merely notifying an applicant of the possibility of a cost order does not meet this threshold.

For local councils and applicants alike, this decision offers a clear reminder of the procedural and substantive principles underpinning the GIPA Act.

Further reading

You can read the full judgment below.