Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10

Woolley v Lismore City Council [2013] NSWADT 10

The information in Dr Taylor's report and 23 February 2009 email was confidential legal advice and privileged under section 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), with no waiver; information in Mr Harrison's materials that would reveal the substance of that advice was likewise protected. The respondent did not establish item 1(f) or 1(h) public interest considerations, and did not establish confidentiality for the 4 March 2005 Memorandum. Although investigation-related material was confidential and item 1(d) applied, and although names of AB and other officers were personal information, the public interest in disclosure of information concerning possible misadministration or corrupt conduct...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Administrative Decisions Tribunal Review; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Respondent's decision affirmed in part and set aside in part, with substituted decisions granting access to specified information and inspection access to other information.
Legal Topics
['government Information (public Access) Act 2009 Access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Misconduct Investigation Information' 'personal Information' 'icac Referral']
['administrative Law' 'government Information Access' 'privacy' 'local Government'] ['government Information (public Access) Act 2009 Access Application' 'overriding Public Interest Against Disclosure' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Misconduct Investigation Information' 'personal Information' 'icac Referral']

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 a Decision Refusing Access to Government Information Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Administrative Decisions Tribunal Review; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether information in Dr Taylor's report and email was subject to legal professional privilege and therefore conclusively presumed to give rise to an overriding public interest against disclosure." "Whether information in Mr Harrison's correspondence and report would reveal the substance of privileged legal advice." 'Whether disclosure of confidential information obtained or created in an alleged misconduct investigation could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of confidential information to the respondent.' "Whether disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise of the respondent's functions or the conduct, effectiveness or integrity of an investigation." 'Whether names of AB and other officers were personal information and, if so, whether the public interest against disclosure outweighed the public interest in disclosure.' 'Whether disputed information should be disclosed by copy or by inspection under section 72 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The information in Dr Taylor's report and 23 February 2009 email was confidential legal advice and privileged under section 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), with no waiver; information in Mr Harrison's materials that would reveal the substance of that advice was likewise protected. The respondent did not establish item 1(f) or 1(h) public interest considerations, and did not establish confidentiality for the 4 March 2005 Memorandum. Although investigation-related material was confidential and item 1(d) applied, and although names of AB and other officers were personal information, the public interest in disclosure of information concerning possible misadministration or corrupt conduct...

Court Disposition

Respondent's decision affirmed in part and set aside in part, with substituted decisions granting access to specified information and inspection access to other information.

Orders

  • ["The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Dr Taylor's report and his email of 23 February 2005 (document 44 and annexure B to document 69) is affirmed." "The decision of the respondent in regard to the information in Mr Harrison's correspondence and his report (document 43, 50 and 69) which,...