GVS v Premier's Department [2026] NSWCATAD 95;

1. The Applicant in this case is known as GVS (the Applicant). GVS is a third party who was consulted by the Premier's Department (the Respondent) following an access application made to the Department under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) on 27 May 2024 (Access Application). The Access Application was made on behalf of another person by an authorised person (Access Applicant).
2. GVS seeks review by the Tribunal of the Respondent's internal review decision dated 5 September 2024. The internal review decision partly affirmed an original decision of the Department made on 11 July 2024 to release information under the GIPA Act to the Access Applicant over GVS's objection.
3. For the reasons set out in this decision the Tribunal affirms the Respondent's decision in part and sets aside and substitutes in part.

1. A number of preliminary matters were raised during the course of proceedings. By decision of the Tribunal dated 3 September 2025 the Tribunal determined that:

(1) the decision of the Respondent to accept the Access Application as validly made is not a reviewable decision under the GIPA Act. Therefore, it is not open to the Tribunal to review whether or not the Access Application was validly made by an authorised person and the Tribunal can proceed to hear the substantive review.

(2) the scope of the Tribunal's administrative review is limited to the information that the Respondent decided to release to the Access Applicant over the objection of GVS. It is not open to the Tribunal to expand the scope of the review to all documents that were the subject of the Access Application or to all documents that were the subject of consultation with GVS, including those over which GVS did not raise an objection.

1. The Tribunal also decided that the Access Applicant is a person who could be aggrieved by a decision of the Tribunal and therefore has a right to appear and be heard in these proceedings under s 104(3) of the GIPA Act. The Tribunal caused the Access Applicant to be notified of their right to appear and be heard and ordered that they advise the Tribunal if they wished to exercise that right. No response was received from the Access Applicant.

1. GVS filed written submissions and made oral submissions at the hearings.
2. GVS filed the following documents:

(1) Administrative Review Application Form filed 10 December 2024 (Exhibit A1)

(2) Statutory Declaration declared 31 March 2025 filed 7 April 2025 (Exhibit A2)

(3) Statutory Declaration declared 27 March 2025 filed 7 April 2025 (Exhibit A3)

(4) Submissions of GVS filed 20 June 2025 (Exhibit A4)

(5) Application for miscellaneous matters seeking confidentiality orders filed 16 June 2025 (Exhibit A5).

1. The Respondent filed written submissions and made oral submissions at the hearings.
2. The Respondent filed the following documents:

(1) Submissions filed on 22 April 2025 (Exhibit R1)

(2) Confidential Bundle filed 22 April 2025 (Exhibit R2)

(3) Affidavit sworn 20 December 2024 filed 6 January 2025 (Exhibit R3)

(4) Submissions of Respondent re: Scope of review and other issues filed 28 May 2025 (Exhibit R4)

(5) Supplementary Bundle filed 28 May 2025 (Exhibit R5)

(6) Further Confidential Bundle filed 28 May 2025 (Exhibit R6)

(7) Documents Marking Objections of the Applicant (the disputed information) (Exhibit R7).

1. On 12 May, 30 June 2025 and 28 November 2025 the Tribunal made orders relating to confidentiality. The final orders made in relation to these proceedings are as follows:

(1) the disclosure of the name of the Applicant is prohibited under s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act)

(2) subject to the orders made in this decision, with the exception of Exhibit R6 and relevant parts of submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent addressing the application of the GIPA Act, the publication or disclosure of the matters contained in documents marked as Exhibits to the proceedings is prohibited under ss 64(1)(c) and (d) of the NCAT Act other than to the Respondent, GVS and the Tribunal.

(3) the disclosure of the content of documents in Exhibit R6 "Respondent's Further Confidential Bundle" is prohibited to the Applicant or any person other than the Tribunal under section 64(1)(d) of the NCAT Act.

1. In accordance with s 64 of the NCAT Act the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to make the orders due to the sensitive nature of material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was also satisfied in accordance with s 107(3) of the GIPA Act that it must receive evidence and hear argument in the absence of the public in order to prevent the disclosure of information for which there is claimed to be an overriding public interest against disclosure.

1. Under the GIPA Act a "reviewable decision" of an agency includes a decision to provide (or to refuse to provide) access to information in response to an access application: s 80(d).
2. Under s 82 of the GIPA Act a person aggrieved by a reviewable decision of an agency is entitled to an internal review of the decision by the agency that made the decision.
3. Under s 100 of the GIPA Act a person "who is aggrieved by a reviewable decision of any agency" may apply to NCAT for administrative review of the decision. Where the aggrieved person is not the access applicant, they must first apply for an internal review of the decision to the agency.
4. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct this review pursuant to s 100 of the GIPA Act, read with ss 28 and 30 of the NCAT Act and s 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act).

1. The Tribunal's function under s 63 of the ADR Act is to determine, based on the material before it, what is the correct and preferable decision, and may affirm, vary, or set aside the decision and make a substitute decision, or set aside the decision and remit it to the agency for further determination.
2. Under s 105(2) of the GIPA Act the onus is on GVS to establish that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information, on one of the bases provided for in the Table in s 14 of the GIPA Act. If GVS meets the onus of persuading the Tribunal that one of those bases applies, GVS must also establish that the public interest factors against disclosure outweigh the public interest factors in favour of disclosure.

1. The objects of the GIPA Act include giving the public an enforceable right to access government information, restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure: ss 3(b) and (c).
2. Section 5 of the GIPA Act establishes a presumption in favour of the disclosure of government information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
3. Under s 9 of the GIPA Act a person who makes an access application for government information has a legally enforceable right to be provided with access to the information, in accordance with Part 4 of that Act, unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information.
4. Section 12(1) of the GIPA Act provides that there is a general public interest in favour of the disclosure of government information. Section 12(2) provides that public interest considerations in favour of disclosure are not limited and sets out some examples of such public interest considerations.
5. Section 13 of the GIPA Act sets out a public interest test which requires a determination of whether 'on balance' there are public interest considerations against disclosure which outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.
6. Under s 14(2) of the GIPA Act, the public interest considerations listed in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act are the only public interest considerations against disclosure that may be taken into account (except where Schedule 1 applies) for the purpose of determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information. Schedule 1 does not apply in this case.
7. A determination as to whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information is to be made in accordance with the principles set out in s 15 of the GIPA which provides that agencies must exercise their functions so as to promote the object of the Act and have regard to relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner.
8. "Personal factors of the application" being the applicant's identity and relationship with any other person, their motives for making the access application, and any other factors particular to the applicant, may also be taken into account when determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information: s 55(1) GIPA Act.
9. The personal factors of the application can also be taken into account as factors in favour of providing an applicant with access to information (s 55(2)).
10. However, personal factors of the application may only be taken into account as factors against providing access if relevant to whether the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have any of the effects referred to in cll 2 (Law enforcement and security), 3 (Individual rights, judicial processes and natural justice), 4 or 5 (but not cll 1, 6 or 7) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act.
11. The term 'personal information' is relevant to cl 3(a) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act (could reasonably be expected to reveal an individual's personal information). The term is defined in cl 4(1) of Sch 4 of the GIPA Act as:

information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual (whether living or dead) whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion.

1. Relevant to cl 3(a), under Sch 4 cl 1 of the GIPA Act "reveal" information means "to disclose information that has not already been publicly disclosed (otherwise than by unlawful disclosure)".

Balancing the competing public interest considerations

1. As set out in Zillman v New South Wales Treasury [2025] NSWCATAD 161 at [30], in accordance with Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Camilleri (GD) [2012] NSWADTAP 19 the Tribunal is required to:

(1) identify the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

(2) consider whether the information in issue, if released, would give rise to a public interest consideration against disclosure; and if so satisfied

(3) consider where the balance lies between the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure and the public interest factors against disclosure, having attributed weight to each consideration, and taking into account the personal factors under s 55.

1. Balancing the competing public interest considerations is "a question of fact and degree, requiring the weighing of competing matters, and is a task that is not amenable to mathematical calculation": Hurst v Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [94].

1. Certain public interest considerations in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act require that there is "prejudice" to the agency. The word "prejudice" is to be given its ordinary meaning, "to cause detriment or disadvantage," or to "impede or derogate from": Hurst v Wagga Wagga City Council [2011] NSWADT 307 at [60] citing Re: Maher and the Attorney General's Department (No 2) (1986) 4 AAR 266 and Sobh v Victoria Police [1994] VicRp 2; (1994) 1 VR 41.

1. It is necessary that disclosure of the information "could reasonably be expected to" to have the effect identified. This calls for an objective test to be made from the point of a view of a "reasonable" administrator: Hall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) [2012] NSWADT 46 at [45]. This is also to be determined as a question of fact based on real and substantial grounds and not just a "mere risk or chance_": Australian Vaccination Network v Department of Finance and Services_ [2013] NSWADT 60 at [22] citing Flack at [40] - [41] and Leech v Sydney Water Corporation [2010] NSWADT 298 at [25].
2. The Tribunal does not require evidence that a prejudicial effect of information disclosure has previously occurred or manifested or will manifest: Transport for NSW v Searle [2018] NSWCATAP 93.

1. Certain clauses in the Table to s 14 require that the information "discloses" or "reveals" certain matters, including personal information. Under Sch 4 cl 1 of the GIPA Act "reveal" information means "to disclose information that has not already been publicly disclosed (otherwise than by unlawful disclosure)."

Clause 1(d) prejudicing the supply of confidential information

1. For the consideration in clause 1(d) of the Table to s 14 to be applied, it must be established that:

(a) the information was obtained in confidence

(b) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply of such information to the agency in the future; and

(c) the information facilitates the effective exercise of the agency's functions: Collins v Department of Finance, Services and Innovation [2018] NSWCATAD 60 at [61].

(1) what are the public interest factors in favour of disclosure

(2) is there a public interest against disclosure of a kind identified in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act that applies to release of information contained in the disputed documents

(3) whether 'on balance' any public interest considerations against disclosure outweigh the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.

1. GVS has not identified any considerations in favour of disclosing the disputed information.
2. GVS's written submissions contend that many of the clauses to the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act apply to the disputed information. The hearing clarified that GVS submits that the following public interest considerations against disclosure apply to the disputed information:

(1) cl 3(a) disclosure would reveal personal information of an individual (including opinions)

(2) cl 1(d) disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information that facilitates the effective exercise of its functions

(3) cl 1(f) disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of the agency's functions

(4) cl 1 (g) disclosure could reasonably be expected to find an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence and

(5) cl 4(d) disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice any person's legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests as it includes untested opinions and information which could damage business reputation.

1. GVS's brief written submissions on other clauses to the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act were not further developed at the hearing. It is not apparent to the Tribunal that those other clauses apply in the circumstances. Noting the onus is on GVS, the Tribunal has insufficient material on which to base a finding that any other clauses apply and the Tribunal does not consider them further.

1. The Respondent refers to the general public interest in favour of disclosure of government information set out in s 12(1) of the GIPA Act. The Respondent also submits that disclosure of the information requested could reasonably be expected to inform the public about the operations of agencies and their policies and practices for dealing with members of the public. Further, the Respondent submits that there is a personal factor that weighs in favour of disclosure as the Access Applicant seeks information related to a complaint.
2. As to considerations against disclosure, the Respondent accepts that certain other personal information in the disputed information at Document 5 is personal information and cl 3(a) of the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act applies. However, in the Respondent's submission it should be afforded minimal weight as the information is not sensitive and reveals matters that were otherwise made evident to the Access Applicant.
3. However, in relation to the first line in Document 10 the Respondent considered at the hearing that it should be redacted as it is personal information of the kind the Respondent has redacted elsewhere in the documents.
4. As to GVS's objections that other information in the disputed information should not be disclosed on the grounds that it would reveal personal information, the Respondent submits that:

(1) the information would not reveal personal information as with the name redacted, the information is not about that individual, nor is the identity of the individual apparent or reasonably ascertainable or

(2) if the information is personal information, this consideration should carry little weight as a consideration against disclosure, given the entirely innocuous nature of the information.

1. In relation to GVS's submission on cl 1(f) and cl 4(d), the Respondent considers that these clauses apply to information described in the Internal Review Decision as "payment information." However, the Respondent submits that these considerations should be accorded minimal weight as the Access Applicant has knowledge of payment information and any prejudice to the exercise of functions by the agency or the business interests of GVS would be minimal.
2. In the Respondent's submission, the disputed information may be released as there are either no applicable public interest considerations against disclosure or, where such considerations apply, they do not outweigh the public interest favouring disclosure.

1. The disputed information is marked up in the documents at Exhibit R 7 using red boxes. References to boxes are to each red box in turn, within the document.
2. The Tribunal considers the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure are those set out at [41].
3. The public interest considerations against disclosure are set out below.

1. The Tribunal finds that cl 3(a) applies to the disputed information in Document 5 in the first, second and third boxes. While Document 5 refers to the Employer as "ER", the Tribunal is satisfied that the identity of the employer is reasonably ascertainable from the contact person information provided in the document as well as the context of the document. While the information may generally be known to the Access Applicant, there is nothing before the Tribunal which indicate that the specific details in Document 5 have already been publicly revealed. Accordingly, the disclosure of the information would reveal personal information to the Access Applicant.
2. However, the Tribunal affords this consideration little weight as the personal information reveals no more than that a representative of GVS had discussions about employment matters with the Respondent that would be reasonably be expected to occur in the circumstances.
3. The disputed information in Document 5 in the first, second and third and fourth boxes can also be described as "payment information." GVS claims that cl 4(d) applies as a consideration against disclosure as this information impacts GVS's reputation and reveals business and financial information.
4. GVS is concerned that disclosure of the payment information may reflect negatively on GVS's business. The onus is on GVS to show that disclosure "could reasonably be expected to prejudice" legitimate business, commercial professional or financial interests.
5. Having regard to the nature of the disputed information and that disclosure is to the world at large, the Tribunal is satisfied that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice GVS's reputation as an employer and its financial standing. Given the nature of the GVS business, the Tribunal gives this consideration more significant weight.
6. In weighing the considerations in favour of disclosure, the Tribunal considers that the payment information relates to the Access Applicant and is a personal factor to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal gives this some but not significant weight, given the payment information issue discussed in the disputed information is resolved and ultimately not material.
7. The Tribunal gives greater weight to the public interest considerations against disclosure as disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice GVS's business or financial interests. This consideration outweighs the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure. The disputed information in Document 5 should not be disclosed.

1. For the reasons set out in paras [52] to [56] the Tribunal finds that cl 4(d) applies and the disputed information should not be disclosed.

1. The information at page 2 is generally administrative in nature. However, for the reasons set out in paras [52] to [56] the Tribunal finds that cl 4(d) applies to the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 2 of Document 9 and that disputed information should not be disclosed.

1. The first line of box 1 reveals the name of the employer representative. The Respondent submits that it should not be disclosed as it reveals personal information and the Respondent has redacted all other personal information identifying the name of the employer representative. The Tribunal considers that the correct and preferable decision is that the first line of box 1 should not be disclosed.
2. GVS no longer contends that the second line of box 1 should not be disclosed. The Tribunal finds that it should be disclosed.
3. For the reasons set out in paras [52] to [56] the Tribunal finds that cl 4(d) applies to box 2 and the disputed information should not be disclosed.

1. The disputed information in Document 21 at pages 2, 3, 4 and 9 can be described as pleasantries. GVS objects to disclosure on the basis that their style of writing would be released and accessible and may identify them.
2. The Tribunal considers that the disputed information is not personal information as identity is not reasonably ascertainable from the document. If the Tribunal is wrong on that, then it gives the consideration little weight as the information is no more than an exchange of pleasantries expected in ordinary communication and affords more weight to the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure.
3. The disputed information on pages 10 and 11 relate to payment information. For the reasons set out in paras [52] to [56] the Tribunal finds that cl 4(d) applies to the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 10, the first box on page 11 and the disputed information in the first sentence in box 2 on page 11 and should not be disclosed.

1. GVS no longer objects to disclosure of the information on pages 1, 2, 4 and the first box on page 9. The information conveys administrative matters and pleasantries and should be disclosed.
2. GVS objects to disclosure of information on page 7 which can be described as a pleasantry or administrative matter, for the reasons set out at [62]. For the reasons set out at [63] the information should be disclosed.
3. GVS objects to information in the second box on page 9 as it refers to correspondence that was redacted and could prejudice the supply to an agency of confidential information (cl 1(d)), prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of its functions (cl 1(f)) and found an action for breach of confidence or otherwise disclose information provided to an agency in confidence (cl 1(g)).
4. The information does not refer to the substance of the redacted correspondence, and it does not relate to the supply of confidential information. There is nothing in the information which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective exercise by an agency of its functions, for example by impacting on the provision of frank information. Accordingly, clls 1(d) and 1(f) are not made out.
5. While the information may have been provided by GVS with an expectation of confidence, the information is innocuous and the Tribunal does not afford that consideration in cl 1(g) weight. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the public interest considerations in favour of disclosure outweigh any considerations against disclosure and the information in the second box on page 9 should be disclosed.
6. GVS also objects to the disclosure of the second sentence in the second box on page 9, pages 10 and 11 for the reasons set out at [62]. For the reasons set out at [63] the Tribunal finds that the information should be disclosed.

1. GVS objects to the disclosure of this information but does not identify any clauses in the Table to s 14 of the GIPA Act which apply. GVS bears the onus to show why the information should not be disclosed. It is not apparent to the Tribunal from reviewing the information that there are any public interest considerations against disclosure. Accordingly the information should be disclosed.

1. For the reasons set out above the Tribunal finds that the disputed payment information contained in Documents 5 and 6, the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 2 of Document 9, the first line of box 1 and box 2 and box 3 of Document 10, and in Document 21 the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 10, box 1 on page 11 and the disputed information in the first sentence in box 2 on page 11 must not be disclosed as it is subject to an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure.
2. The remaining disputed information must be disclosed to the access applicant.

(1) the disputed payment information contained in Documents 5 and 6, the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 2 of Document 9, the first line of box 1 and box 2 and box 3 of Document 10, and in Document 21 the last 13 words of the second sentence on page 10, box 1 on page 11 and the disputed information in the first sentence in box 2 on page 11 must not be disclosed as it is subject to an overriding public interest consideration against disclosure.

(2) The decision of the Respondent dated 5 September 2024 is otherwise affirmed.

(3) Other than the disputed information referred to in Order 1, the disputed information must be provided to the access applicant within 14 days of this decision.

14 April 2026 - Order (1) amended to include the word "payment" on coversheet and [74] and in conclusion at [72].

14 April 2026 - Coversheet formatting and grammar corrected at publication restriction.

14 April 2026 - Cross-references at [48], [57], [58], [61], [64], [66], and [70] corrected.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

14 April 2026 - 14 April 2026 - Order (1) amended to include the word "payment" on coversheet and [74] and in conclusion at [72].

14 April 2026 - Coversheet formatting and grammar corrected at publication restriction.

14 April 2026 - Cross-references at [48], [57], [58], [61], [64], [66], and [70] corrected.