Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal - [2012] NSWCA 19

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2012] NSWCA 19
Hearing dates: 21 September 2011
Decision date: 28 February 2012
Before: Campbell JA at [1]
Meagher JA at [2]
Handley AJA at [104]
Decision:
(1) The appeal be dismissed.
(2) The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal.
[ Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - privacy - disclosure of personal and health information - ADT review of internal review of conduct - appeal to Appeal Panel on questions of law - whether Appeal Panel erred in not extending appeal to review of merits - Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, ss 52, 53 and 55 - Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002, s 21

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - delay in provision of information - meaning of "excessive delay"
COSTS - whether error in exercising discretion to award costs - Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act, s 88(1A)
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989 (Cth)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited: AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131
B&L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] NSWCA 187; (2008) 74 NSWLR 481
Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36; (1996) 186 CLR 389
Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080; (2002) 120 FLR 243
Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267
Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080; (2002) 120 FLR 243
Kadian v Richards [2004] NSWSC 382; (2004) 61 NSWLR 222
King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531
Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168; (1982) 153 CLR 168
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Services [2010] NSWADT 94
KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 102
KT v South Sydney West Area Health Service (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 60
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeon's Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456; (2005) 65 NSWLR 245
Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548
Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156
OV & OW v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council [2010] NSWCA 155; (2010) 270 ALR 542
State Transit Authority (New South Wales) v Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249
Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192
Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 11 June 2002 at 2960
New South Wales Department of Health, Privacy Internal Review Guidelines NSW Health (24 May 2006)
New South Wales Department of Health, Privacy Manual…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWCA 19
Decision Date: 28 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerned a dispute regarding the disclosure of personal and health information. The appellant, Altaranesi, sought to appeal a decision of the Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). The ADT had reviewed an internal review of conduct, and the Appeal Panel had subsequently reviewed the ADT's decision on questions of law.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Appeal Panel erred in law by not extending its review to the merits of the ADT's decision, and whether the ADT had erred in its interpretation of "excessive delay" in the provision of information under the relevant privacy legislation. Additionally, the court considered whether the ADT had erred in its exercise of discretion regarding the award of costs. The relevant legislation included the *Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998* (NSW) and the *Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel's review was correctly confined to questions of law, as stipulated by the governing legislation. The court found no error in the Appeal Panel's determination that it was not empowered to review the merits of the ADT's decision. Furthermore, the court found no error in the ADT's findings concerning the delay in the provision of information or its exercise of discretion in awarding costs.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal be dismissed.

(2) The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal.

[ Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2012] NSWCA 19
Hearing dates:	21 September 2011
Decision date:	28 February 2012
Before:	Campbell JA at [1] Meagher JA at [2] Handley AJA at [104]
Decision:	(1) The appeal be dismissed. (2) The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal. [ Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - privacy - disclosure of personal and health information - ADT review of internal review of conduct - appeal to Appeal Panel on questions of law - whether Appeal Panel erred in not extending appeal to review of merits - Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, ss 52, 53 and 55 - Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002, s 21 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - delay in provision of information - meaning of "excessive delay" COSTS - whether error in exercising discretion to award costs - Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act, s 88(1A)
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Freedom of Information Act 1989 (Cth) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Health Records Information Privacy Act 2002 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited:	AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131 B&L Linings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] NSWCA 187; (2008) 74 NSWLR 481 Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36; (1996) 186 CLR 389 Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080; (2002) 120 FLR 243 Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080; (2002) 120 FLR 243 Kadian v Richards [2004] NSWSC 382; (2004) 61 NSWLR 222 King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168; (1982) 153 CLR 168 KT v Sydney South West Area Health Services [2010] NSWADT 94 KT v Sydney South West Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 102 KT v South Sydney West Area Health Service (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 60 Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeon's Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456; (2005) 65 NSWLR 245 Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548 Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 OV & OW v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council [2010] NSWCA 155; (2010) 270 ALR 542 State Transit Authority (New South Wales) v Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249 Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192
Texts Cited:	New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 11 June 2002 at 2960 New South Wales Department of Health, Privacy Internal Review Guidelines NSW Health (24 May 2006) New South Wales Department of Health, Privacy Manual…