ALS v Department of Justice and Attorney-General and Office of Fair Trading;; DJM v Department of Justice and Attorney-General and Office of Fair Trading

In the case of ALS v Department of Justice and Attorney-General and Office of Fair Trading and DJM v Department of Justice and Attorney-General and Office of Fair Trading, the appellants brought an action in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) seeking compensation for alleged breaches of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (IPA). The appellants argued that their privacy was breached when their personal information was collected during an investigation by the Crime and Corruption Commission into a complaint of misconduct made against them. The QCAT found that the investigation did not breach the IPA, and the appellants appealed the decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the collection of the appellants' personal information during the investigation was governed by the Information Privacy Principles in the IPA, and whether the exclusion of certain documents or information from the operation of the IPA was consistent with a purposive interpretation of the Act. The court had to determine whether the literal interpretation of the relevant sections of the IPA produced absurd results, and whether the legislature had balanced the competing interests by excluding certain documents or information from the operation of the IPA.

The court found that the collection of the appellants' personal information during the investigation was not governed by the Information Privacy Principles in the IPA, and that the exclusion of certain documents or information from the operation of the IPA was consistent with a purposive interpretation of the Act. The court rejected the appellants' argument that a literal interpretation of the relevant sections of the IPA produced absurd results, and held that the respondent's submission that the investigation was not without constraint was valid. The court also found that the learned Senior Member's decision was not misplaced, as the references to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 and the Public Service Act 2008 were part of a valid response put forward by the respondent to an issue raised in the submissions of the appellants.

The appeal in respect of ground one of the notice of appeal is dismissed; the application for leave to appeal in respect of grounds 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal is refused; and the respondent’s notice of contention is dismissed.