O’Grady v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWCATAD 50

O’Grady v Sutherland Shire Council [2020] NSWCATAD 50

Section 75 of the GIPA Act provides a discretion, not an obligation, for an agency to create a new record. The Council's decision to exercise its discretion not to create a new record in respect of Item 10 was consistent with the statute. There was no legal basis on which to overturn the Council’s decision, as the GIPA Act does not compel the agency to create information in this context.

Parties
Applicant: Rod O'Grady; Respondent: Sutherland Shire Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Merits Determination
Outcome
Decision of respondent affirmed
Legal Topics
Government Information (public Access) Act, GIPA, Right of Access to Government Information, Creation of New Records, Exercise of Discretion Under GIPA Act
Administrative Law Government Information (public Access) Act GIPA Right of Access to Government Information Creation of New Records Exercise of Discretion Under 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rod O'Grady

Applicant

Sutherland Shire Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agency (Council) is obliged to create a new record in response to an access application under s 75 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Ratio Decidendi

Section 75 of the GIPA Act provides a discretion, not an obligation, for an agency to create a new record. The Council's decision to exercise its discretion not to create a new record in respect of Item 10 was consistent with the statute. There was no legal basis on which to overturn the Council’s decision, as the GIPA Act does not compel the agency to create information in this context.

Court Disposition

Decision of respondent affirmed

Orders

  • The decision of the respondent dated 18 March 2019 in respect of Item 10 is affirmed.