Fisher v Upper Lachlan Shire Council [2022] NSWCATAD 65

Fisher v Upper Lachlan Shire Council [2022] NSWCATAD 65

The Council proved that it had conducted reasonable searches using the most efficient means reasonably available to it for the categories of information the applicant claimed were critically absent. The searches covered the Council's relevant electronic and hard copy record systems and had located and released additional documents where found. On the material before the Tribunal, the Council did not hold any further information in the disputed categories, and the 3 August 2020 decision was therefore the correct and preferable decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Decision Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) That Information Was Not Held by the Agency / Determination on the Papers
Outcome
The Council's decision was affirmed.
Legal Topics
['merits Review' 'access to Government Information' 'reasonable Searches' 'information Not Held by Agency' 'gipa Act']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access'] ['merits Review' 'access to Government Information' 'reasonable Searches' 'information Not Held by Agency' 'gipa Act']

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 Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) That Information Was Not Held by the Agency / Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Council held any further information falling within the applicant's access request." 'Whether the Council undertook reasonable searches under s 53(2) of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) for the information the applicant asserted was critically absent.' "Whether the Council's 3 August 2020 decision that it did not hold further information was the correct and preferable decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Council proved that it had conducted reasonable searches using the most efficient means reasonably available to it for the categories of information the applicant claimed were critically absent. The searches covered the Council's relevant electronic and hard copy record systems and had located and released additional documents where found. On the material before the Tribunal, the Council did not hold any further information in the disputed categories, and the 3 August 2020 decision was therefore the correct and preferable decision.

Court Disposition

The Council's decision was affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Council, made on 3 August 2020, is affirmed.']