GIPA Act and ‘out of scope’ information

In a decision handed down on 10 July 2019, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ruled that decisions about whether documents are outside the scope of a GIPA application are not reviewable by the Tribunal: Miskelly v Roads and Maritime Services [2019] NSWCATAD 133.

This issue has not been squarely addressed in previous decisions of the Tribunal. By excluding review of a decision as to whether a document is within or outside the scope of a request altogether, the decision in Miskelly goes further than previous decisions, which have simply acknowledged that an agency has no obligation to provide material that has not been requested by an applicant[1].


Mr Miskelly sought review of a decision by RMS to refuse him access to specified information concerning the costs and budget estimates for the Sydney Gateway Project.  He argued that there was a ‘manifestly overwhelming public interest’ in the disclosure of the information so that members of the public could know the estimated cost of this major infrastructure project.

Many of the documents for which the RMS refused to allow access were Cabinet documents and much of the decision deals with whether RMS had reasonable grounds for not releasing those documents.  (In dealing with a Cabinet information claim under the GIPA Act, the Tribunal is limited to reviewing whether ‘reasonable grounds’ for the claim exist rather than, as is usually the case, deciding for itself what is the correct and preferable decision in relation to the request for access.)

Out of scope documents

Of more interest to local government, the Tribunal also dealt with a request by Mr Miskelly to review the decision by RMS that a number of documents initially identified during its search for the information requested by the applicant were not within the scope of his request.

In coming to its decision, the Tribunal observed that every Government agency today has some form of computerised records management system (eg TRIM) that captures and manages both paper and electronic information held by the agency.

The GIPA Act requires an agency to undertake reasonable searches to find any Government information held by the agency when the application was received[2] and this obligation expressly extends to carrying out searches using any available electronic information management system[3].  The Tribunal noted that it is not unusual, when conducting an initial search for relevant documents using a computerised document management system, that the search will locate documents which, on closer examination, are found not to contain information relevant to the access request. These records are commonly described as being ‘out of scope’.

This is what happened when the RMS responded to the applicant’s GIPA request. A search was carried out using its computerised document management system and this identified a number of documents as being relevant which, on further review, were determined not to fall within the scope of the applicant’s request. The applicant asked the Tribunal to review that determination. The RMS argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to do so.

The Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal agreed with the contention made by the RMS that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review a decision that a document is ‘out of scope’. The Tribunal’s reasoning was as follows:

  • Under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, the Tribunal is given jurisdiction to review a decision when the enabling legislation (i.e. legislation other than that Act) provides for applications to be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of that kind[4].
  • The GIPA Act provides for the review by the Tribunal of a ‘reviewable decision’ by an agency.
  • Section 80 of the GIPA Act lists the decisions that are ‘reviewable decisions’. Some thirteen different kinds of decision are the listed in that section including, for example, a decision to refuse to provide access to information, a decision that the information is not held by the agency and a decision that information is already available to the applicant.
  • The list of reviewable decisions in s.80, which is quite specific and detailed, does not include a decision that the information requested is ‘out of scope’.
  • Hence the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review a decision that information requested by an applicant is ‘out of scope’.

Implications for local councils

The effect of the Tribunal’s decision Miskelly is that decisions made by councils as to whether documents are outside the scope of a GIPA application are not reviewable by the Tribunal.

In drafting decisions under the GIPA Act, councils should therefore take care to distinguish any information which is determined to be out of scope from the information to which a council decides to refuse access under s.58(1) of the Act.

For more information about this decision or its implications please contact Alan Bradbury.

[1] See, for example, Ormonde v NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (No.2) [2004] NSWADT 253 (at [58] to [66]

[2] GIPA Act, s.53(2)

[3] GIPA Act, s.53(3)

[4] Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997, s.9