The Information and Privacy Commission NSW (IPC) publishes case notes to highlight significant and interesting cases from the IPC's jurisdictions.
IPC case notes are intended to serve agencies and practitioners from the private, government and university sectors. The case notes are current at the date published. IPC case notes are not intended to replace legal advice, which should be sought as appropriate.
|March 2017||Pallier v NSW State Emergency Service  NSWCATAD 293||
The Tribunal considered the breadth of the public interest considerations for and against disclosure applied to workplace investigation reports, and in doing so found that the balance in favour of disclosing certain aspects of workplace investigation reports may outweigh considerations against disclosure.
|March 2017||Commissioner of Police v Danis  NSWCATAP 7||
The Appeal Panel distinguished between preliminary decisions and final decisions under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), and provided guidance in relation to a decision to refuse to deal with an access application under section 60 of the GIPA Act.
|December 2016||Bayne v Department of Premier and Cabinet  NSWCATAD 233||
Applicant conducted proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the Respondent. Tribunal found special circumstances warranted an award of costs, and ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs of $4,575.35 Bayne v Department of Premier and Cabinet  NSWCATAD 233
|December 2016||Page v Southern Cross University  NSWCATAD 199||
Discounting processing charges and refusal to deal further with an access application when an advance deposit has not been paid Page v Southern Cross University  NSWCATAD 199
|September 2016||Zonnevylle v Department of Education and Communities  NSWCATAD 49 and
Zonnevylle v NSW Department of Finance and Services  NSWCATAD 47
The Tribunal dealt with the application of section 112 of the GIPA Act, which enables the Tribunal to refer to the relevant Minister any circumstances where an officer of an agency may be thought to have acted inappropriately with respect to his or her functions under the GIPA Act.
|June 2016||Shoebridge v Forestry Corporation  NSWCATAD 93||
The Tribunal identified the steps for a decision maker in considering whether the information applied for is of special benefit to the public generally Shoebridge v Forestry Corporation  NSWCATAD 93
|June 2016||Abdelaziz v StateCover Mutual Ltd  NSWCATAD 1||
The Tribunal considered the language of the GIPA Act to be clear in assisting with a decision that a body is not an agency for the purposes of the GIPA Act Abdelaziz v StateCover Mutual Ltd  NSWCATAD 1
|March 2016||Mino v Legal Aid NSW  NSWCATAD 24||
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to require an agency to create a new record or to review an agency’s decision not to include information on its disclosure log Mino v Legal Aid NSW  NSWCATAD 245.
|March 2016||Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett  NSWCATAP 68||
Whether an agency can substitute new decision after a review application has been filed, whether in decisions to refuse to confirm or deny an agency is obliged to give detailed reasons and the weighing of considerations when an agency is seeking to refuse to confirm or deny information is held Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett  NSWCATAP 68.
|November 2015||Section 110 restraint orders Pittwater Council v Walker  NSWCATAD 34 and Palerang Council, Queanbeyan City Council & Goulburn Mulwaree Council v Powell  NSWCATAD 44||In certain circumstances, public interest considerations favour orders restraining persistent and unmeritorious applications requiring an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources by an agency.|
|October 2015||CCB v Department of Education and Communities  NSWCATAD 145||Who is an aggrieved person, what is required to establish legal professional privilege, and can a work health and safety incident form be released to an applicant.|
|October 2015||National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University  NSWCATAD 151||Whether reviewable decision about imposing processing charge may be made prior to application being decided.|
|August 2015||D’Adam v New South Wales Treasury and the Premier of New South Wales  NSWCATAP 61||Distinguishing between 'information’and 'document’and the assessment of the dominant purpose in relation to Cabinet information.|