Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 121 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 16 June 2016 Decision date: 16 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: The matter is listed for further directions at 11.30 am on Tuesday 26 July 2016.
Catchwords: Privacy – health privacy principles – information protection principles – personal information – health information – collection – lawful purpose – unlawful means – storage – relevance – use – access - disclosure of health information Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998Cases Cited: ALZ v WorkCover NSW (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 122
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 93
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138
Bevege v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 22
BY v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 79
JD v New South Wales Medical Board [2008] NSWADT 67
NSW Breeding and Racing v Administrative Decisions Tribunal [2001] NSWSC 494
NX v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWADT 74
PN v Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 287
PN v Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 59
Rittau v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 186
WL v Randwick City Council [2001] NSWADTAP 58Category: Principal judgment Parties: ALZ (Applicant)
SafeWork NSW (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
ALZ (Applicant in person )
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s): 133158
Reasons for decision
Background
-
In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as ALZ. At relevant times ALZ was employed by a local council ("the Council"). The Respondent was previously known as WorkCover NSW but has undergone a change of name and is now known as SafeWork NSW.
-
ALZ alleges that the Respondent's conduct contravened several of the Health Privacy Principles ("HPPs") of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 ("HRIP Act") and also several of the Information Protection Principles ("IPPs") of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("PPIP Act").
-
I have set out the relevant background in my decisions in ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49 ("ALZ No.1") and ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 93 ("ALZ No.2").
-
The conduct which was the subject of ALZ’s complaint concerns a medical report dated 10 November 2011 ("the medical report") by a psychiatrist, Dr Prabal Kar. The medical report was prepared in relation to a workers compensation claim brought by ALZ against the Council. The workers compensation insurer which covered the Council for workers compensation claims was StateCover Mutual Limited ("StateCover"). StateCover and the Council were responsible for processing and managing ALZ's workers compensation claim. The Respondent obtained a copy of the medical report…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] NSWCATAD 121
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues central to the case included whether the collection of ALZ's personal health information by SafeWork NSW was done for a lawful purpose and whether the means by which the information was obtained were lawful. Additionally, the tribunal had to assess if the storage, use, and disclosure of ALZ's health information complied with the statutory requirements, particularly in relation to relevance, necessity, and the principles of privacy. The court had to consider the definitions and scope of "personal information" and "health information" under the Act, and whether the information was handled in accordance with the outlined health privacy principles and information protection principles.
The tribunal examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the processes followed by SafeWork NSW in handling ALZ's health information. It considered whether the information was collected, stored, used, and disclosed with appropriate safeguards and for legitimate purposes. The tribunal found that SafeWork NSW did not adhere to the statutory requirements concerning the handling of personal health information, concluding that there were breaches of the privacy principles. The tribunal's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case, leading to the determination that SafeWork NSW had indeed contravened the Act.
The final orders of the tribunal mandated that the matter be listed for further directions, setting a date and time for the continuation of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with privacy laws in handling personal health information and highlights the need for public sector agencies to ensure they are operating within the legal framework established to protect individual privacy rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
The matter is listed for further directions at 11.30 am on Tuesday 26 July 2016.
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.