Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 342

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 342

Dealing with Mr Jeray's access application would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of Blue Mountains City Council's resources as evidenced by the volume of records, third party consultations, and time estimates, which outweigh the public interest factors favouring disclosure. The Council lawfully refused to deal with the application under s 60(1)(a) of the GIPA Act, having also given the applicant a reasonable opportunity to narrow the scope.

Parties
Applicant: Ivan Jeray; Respondent: Blue Mountains City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Tribunal Determination
Outcome
decision under review affirmed
Legal Topics
Access to Government Information, Unreasonable and Substantial Diversion of Resources
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Access to Government Information Unreasonable and Substantial Diversion of Resources

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Jeray

Applicant

Blue Mountains City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Tribunal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether dealing with the applicant's access request would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of Council resources under s 60(1)(a) of the GIPA Act
  2. 2 Whether the Council gave the applicant a reasonable opportunity to amend the application as required by s 60(4) of the GIPA Act
  3. 3 Whether a list of documents is reasonably required or permitted under s 75 of the GIPA Act

Ratio Decidendi

Dealing with Mr Jeray's access application would require an unreasonable and substantial diversion of Blue Mountains City Council's resources as evidenced by the volume of records, third party consultations, and time estimates, which outweigh the public interest factors favouring disclosure. The Council lawfully refused to deal with the application under s 60(1)(a) of the GIPA Act, having also given the applicant a reasonable opportunity to narrow the scope.

Court Disposition

decision under review affirmed

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.
  • An oral hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.