Charteris v General Manager, Leichhardt Municipal Council [2000] NSWADT 81

Charteris v General Manager, Leichhardt Municipal Council [2000] NSWADT 81

Most communications between the Council and its solicitors were confidential communications created for the sole purpose of legal advice or litigation and were exempt under cl 10; disclosure of Mr Taylor's first advice did not waive privilege over the remaining documents, and the public interest did not justify overriding the privilege. However, some internal Council documents and non-privileged parts of documents did not disclose confidential legal advice and, although assumed to be internal working documents, disclosure of them was not shown to be contrary to the public interest under cl 9. The decision was therefore set aside only for documents 18, 23, 32, 52, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 70,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of an Internal Review Decision Refusing Access to Documents Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (nsw) / Principal Matter in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
Decision under review set aside in part and otherwise affirmed. The header notes that the decision concerning documents 1, 27 and 54 was set aside by appeal on 17/5/01 and otherwise affirmed.
Legal Topics
['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'internal Working Documents' 'public Interest Override' 'waiver of Privilege']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information' 'local Government'] ['access to Documents' 'exempt Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'internal Working Documents' 'public Interest Override' 'waiver of Privilege']

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

Application for Review of an Internal Review Decision Refusing Access to Documents Under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (nsw) / Principal Matter in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether documents withheld by the Council were exempt under cl 10 of Sch 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 on the basis of legal professional privilege.' "Whether disclosure of a solicitor's earlier advice waived privilege over related documents or later advice." 'Whether the Tribunal should override legal professional privilege in deciding the correct and preferable decision under ss 24 and 25 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' 'Whether internal Council memoranda or parts of memoranda were exempt under cl 9 of Sch 1 as internal working documents whose disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.' 'Whether orders should be made concerning alleged missing or non-produced documents.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most communications between the Council and its solicitors were confidential communications created for the sole purpose of legal advice or litigation and were exempt under cl 10; disclosure of Mr Taylor's first advice did not waive privilege over the remaining documents, and the public interest did not justify overriding the privilege. However, some internal Council documents and non-privileged parts of documents did not disclose confidential legal advice and, although assumed to be internal working documents, disclosure of them was not shown to be contrary to the public interest under cl 9. The decision was therefore set aside only for documents 18, 23, 32, 52, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 70,...

Court Disposition

Decision under review set aside in part and otherwise affirmed. The header notes that the decision concerning documents 1, 27 and 54 was set aside by appeal on 17/5/01 and otherwise affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is set aside in so far as it concerns documents numbered 18, 23, 32, 52, 59, 61, 62, 63, and 70, and in relation to those documents it is decided that the applicant should be given access to the whole of documents 18, 32, 59, 61, 62 and 63 and to such parts of documents 23, 52, 70 as...