McGuinness v Bathurst Regional Council [2005] NSWADT 152

McGuinness v Bathurst Regional Council [2005] NSWADT 152

The Tribunal held that the document in question is exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as it was obtained in confidence, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the agency, and, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest. In part, exemption also applies under clause 6 regarding unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. The evidence did not support a substantial adverse effect under clause 16.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Freedom of Information Application / Decision on Principal Matter
Outcome
agency's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
['freedom of Information' 'exempt Documents' 'confidential Material' 'personal Affairs' 'operations of Agencies']
['administrative Law' 'information Law'] ['freedom of Information' 'exempt Documents' 'confidential Material' 'personal Affairs' 'operations of Agencies']

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 Application / Decision on Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notes of a phone conversation between Ms Smith and the informant are exempt documents under Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 on grounds of confidential material, personal affairs, or operations of agencies.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the document in question is exempt under clause 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 as it was obtained in confidence, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the agency, and, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest. In part, exemption also applies under clause 6 regarding unreasonable disclosure of personal affairs. The evidence did not support a substantial adverse effect under clause 16.

Court Disposition

agency's decision affirmed

Orders

  • ["The agency's decision is affirmed."]