Cunliffe v Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 77

Cunliffe v Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 77

The access request, apart from cl 1(c), required the actioning officer to analyse a large body of material and make subjective judgments about whether words or sentences carried particular imputations of discreditable conduct. The Tribunal's conclusion that such parts of the request did not satisfy the identification requirement in s 17(d) involved no demonstrated legal error or transgression of principles governing discretionary evaluations. The appeal was unmeritorious, and it was fair to order the appellant, an experienced solicitor, to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Appeal / Appeal From Cunliffe V Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council [2010] NSWADT 55
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['validity of Access Application' 'identification of Documents' 'freedom of Information Act 1989, S 17(d)' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
['freedom of Information' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['validity of Access Application' 'identification of Documents' 'freedom of Information Act 1989, S 17(d)' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']

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

Freedom of Information Appeal / Appeal From Cunliffe V Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council [2010] NSWADT 55

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the access application contained such information as was reasonably necessary to enable the requested documents to be identified under s 17(d) of the Freedom of Information Act 1989.' 'Whether the Tribunal below erred in concluding that parts of the request requiring subjective judgment were not valid requests.' 'Whether costs should be awarded against the appellant for the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The access request, apart from cl 1(c), required the actioning officer to analyse a large body of material and make subjective judgments about whether words or sentences carried particular imputations of discreditable conduct. The Tribunal's conclusion that such parts of the request did not satisfy the identification requirement in s 17(d) involved no demonstrated legal error or transgression of principles governing discretionary evaluations. The appeal was unmeritorious, and it was fair to order the appellant, an experienced solicitor, to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed."]