Webb v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWCATAD 30

Webb v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWCATAD 30

The requested documents were properly found by the Council to be 'excluded information' under the GIPA Act relating to the complaint handling and investigative functions of the Information Commissioner, and the Information and Privacy Commission did not consent to disclosure. This triggered a conclusive presumption against disclosure. The processing fees imposed by the Council were lawfully calculated and not proved excessive or contrary to the statutory scheme. The decisions of the Council were properly affirmed.

Parties
Applicant: Telina Webb; Respondent: Port Stephens Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Access to Government Information (administrative Review) / Principal Judgment; Final Determination on the Papers
Outcome
The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are affirmed.
Legal Topics
Access to Information, Excluded Information, Processing Charges, Public Interest Test
Administrative Law Information Law Access to Information Excluded Information Processing Charges Public Interest Test

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Telina Webb

Applicant

Port Stephens Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Access to Government Information (administrative Review) / Principal Judgment; Final Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requested information is 'excluded information' under the GIPA Act and its disclosure subject to a conclusive presumption against disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the decision to impose a processing charge was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The requested documents were properly found by the Council to be 'excluded information' under the GIPA Act relating to the complaint handling and investigative functions of the Information Commissioner, and the Information and Privacy Commission did not consent to disclosure. This triggered a conclusive presumption against disclosure. The processing fees imposed by the Council were lawfully calculated and not proved excessive or contrary to the statutory scheme. The decisions of the Council were properly affirmed.

Court Disposition

The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are affirmed.

Orders

  • The decisions of the Council (Respondent) are affirmed.