Fisher v Upper Lachlan Shire Council [2019] NSWCATAD 185

Fisher v Upper Lachlan Shire Council [2019] NSWCATAD 185

The Tribunal accepted that the review should be treated as a review of the decision to require payment of an advance deposit. On the evidence, the agency adequately explained the discrepancy between the subpoena estimate and the GIPA application estimate, and its estimate of the additional time required to finalise...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Review of Agency Decision to Require Payment of an Advance Deposit Against Processing Charges
Outcome
The decision of the agency is affirmed.
Legal Topics
['government Information Access' 'processing Charges' 'advance Deposit' 'ncat Review of Agency Decision']
['administrative Law' 'freedom of Information'] ['government Information Access' 'processing Charges' 'advance Deposit' 'ncat Review of Agency Decision']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review Under the Government Information (public Access) Act 2009 / Review of Agency Decision to Require Payment of an Advance Deposit Against Processing Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal should review the agency's estimated processing charge as a decision to impose processing charges or treat the application as a review of the decision to require payment of an advance deposit." 'Whether the quantum of the estimated processing charge, and consequently the advance deposit required, was reasonable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted that the review should be treated as a review of the decision to require payment of an advance deposit. On the evidence, the agency adequately explained the discrepancy between the subpoena estimate and the GIPA application estimate, and its estimate of the additional time required to finalise the decision was reasonable. The decision requiring the advance deposit was therefore affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decision of the agency is affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the agency is affirmed.']