Brazel v Sydney Water (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 370

Brazel v Sydney Water (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 370

The Tribunal held that the contested information in GIPA Applications 9255 and 9412 was supplied to Sydney Water in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of such information in the future, reveal personal information, and prejudice Sydney Water's deliberative processes and its exercise of functions. The public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour, except for the lawyer's signature block, which had been previously disclosed and should be released. The refusal to deal with GIPA Application 9177 was justified as the matter had been previously decided with no reasonable grounds for a different outcome.

Parties
Applicant: Thomas Brazel; Respondent: Sydney Water
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Decision on the Papers
Outcome
Decision largely affirmed; varied in one respect
Legal Topics
Government Information (public Access), Public Interest Test, Third Party Objections, Confidentiality Orders
Administrative Law Information Law Government Information (public Access) Public Interest Test Third Party Objections Confidentiality Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Brazel

Applicant

Sydney Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Decision on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of third party submissions in GIPA Applications 9255 and 9412
  2. 2 Whether Sydney Water was correct to refuse to deal with access to third party submissions made in response to GIPA Application 9177 under s 60(1)(b) of the GIPA Act
  3. 3 Whether redactions made by Sydney Water were correctly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the contested information in GIPA Applications 9255 and 9412 was supplied to Sydney Water in confidence and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of such information in the future, reveal personal information, and prejudice Sydney Water's deliberative processes and its exercise of functions. The public interest considerations against disclosure outweighed those in favour, except for the lawyer's signature block, which had been previously disclosed and should be released. The refusal to deal with GIPA Application 9177 was justified as the matter had been previously decided with no reasonable grounds for a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Decision largely affirmed; varied in one respect

Orders

  • A hearing is dispensed with under s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
  • The decision made by Sydney Water on 12 August 2020 is varied to require release of the signature block of the lawyer Colin Grace as set out in [99] of these reasons.