EIO v Central Coast Council [2020] NSWCATAD 230

EIO v Central Coast Council [2020] NSWCATAD 230

EIO bore the burden of establishing an overriding public interest against disclosure. The evidence did not establish that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to expose EIO to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation under clause 3(f), and no evidence or submissions established that clause 1(d) applied. Because no public interest consideration against disclosure justified withholding EIO's name, and the emails concerned EIO's public functions, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Council's decision to provide access.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision to Provide Access to Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Final Decision on the Papers
Outcome
The decision under review is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['government Information Access' 'third Party Consultation' 'public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'personal Factors of Access Application']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['government Information Access' 'third Party Consultation' 'public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure' 'risk of Harm, Serious Harassment or Serious Intimidation' 'personal Factors of Access Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of a Decision to Provide Access to Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Final Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information sought under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.' 'Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose EIO to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation under clause 3(f) of the Table to s 14 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.' 'Whether clause 1(d) of the Table to s 14 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 applied to information said to be confidential.' "Whether EIO's identity should be removed from the information before disclosure."]

Ratio Decidendi

EIO bore the burden of establishing an overriding public interest against disclosure. The evidence did not establish that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to expose EIO to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation under clause 3(f), and no evidence or submissions established that clause 1(d) applied. Because no public interest consideration against disclosure justified withholding EIO's name, and the emails concerned EIO's public functions, the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Council's decision to provide access.

Court Disposition

The decision under review is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.']