Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 193

Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2023] NSWCATAD 193

The agency was found to have conducted logical and reasonable searches for government information sought under Item 1, satisfying its statutory obligations. No further information was held within scope. Regarding Item 4, records of in-house counsel's billable hours or analogous cost data were not maintained and the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Lynette Styles; Respondent: Wollondilly Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Merits Review Final Orders
Outcome
Agency decision affirmed in part and varied in part; application otherwise dismissed
Legal Topics
Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw), Administrative Review of Agency Decision, Reasonableness of Search for Information, Public Interest Considerations, Personal Information
Administrative Law Freedom of Information Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 (nsw) Administrative Review of Agency Decision Reasonableness of Search for Information Public Interest Considerations Personal Information

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynette Styles

Applicant

Wollondilly Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Merits Review Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agency held further information within the scope of Item 1 of the applicant's access request
  2. 2 Whether the agency reasonably searched for information under s 53 GIPA Act
  3. 3 Whether information concerning in-house legal costs (Item 4) was held by the agency

Ratio Decidendi

The agency was found to have conducted logical and reasonable searches for government information sought under Item 1, satisfying its statutory obligations. No further information was held within scope. Regarding Item 4, records of in-house counsel's billable hours or analogous cost data were not maintained and the agency was not required to create such a record or estimate; this information was therefore not held. Furthermore, the request for such data did not constitute a request for personal information, so that exemption was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Agency decision affirmed in part and varied in part; application otherwise dismissed

Orders

  • The agency's decision that it does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of Item 1 of the applicant's access request is affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.
  • With respect to Item 4 of the applicant's access request the decision under review is varied: information within the scope of the request is not held by the agency.