ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 4) - [2017] NSWCATAD 1

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 4) [2017] NSWCATAD 1
Hearing dates: 18 February 2016
Date of orders: 04 January 2017
Decision date: 04 January 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:
1. SafeWork NSW is pay to ALZ damages of $5,000.
2. Otherwise, the Tribunal determines to take no further action on these matters.

Catchwords: Privacy - information protection principle - personal information -Health information - Health Privacy Principle - retention and security safeguards - reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access - psychological harm - damages
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 1998
Cases Cited: ALZ v WorkCover NSW (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 122
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 241
AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179
JD v NSW Medical Board (No.2) [2006] NSWADT 345
NZ v Department of Housing [2006] NSWADT 173
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ALZ (Applicant)
SafeWork NSW (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
ALZ (Applicant in person)
Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 123291, 133003
Publication restriction: Pursuant to subsection 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the name of the applicant is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the Tribunal.

reasons for decision

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent's conduct contravened several of the Health Privacy Principles ("HPP"s) of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 ("HRIP Act") and also several of the Information Protection Principles ("IPP"s) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("PPIP Act").
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 background is set out in my decisions reported as ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49 ("ALZ v WorkCover No.1") and ALZ v WorkCover NSW (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 122 ("ALZ v WorkCover No.2"). Also relevant is the Appeal Panel decision in ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138 ("the Appeal Panel decision"). The Applicant did not appeal against the Appeal Panel decision.
WorkCover NSW was the Respondent to the earlier proceedings. However, on 1 September 2015, the State Insurance and Care Governance Act 2015 (“the SICG Act”), abolishing WorkCover and transferring its relevant functions as the regulator under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to SafeWork NSW. The appropriate respondent to these proceedings is now SafeWork NSW.
The conduct 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…

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 ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 4) 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: [2017] NSWCATAD 1
Decision Date: 04 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 4), the matter before the tribunal involved allegations of privacy breaches by SafeWork NSW in relation to the retention and security of personal and health information. The primary dispute centred on whether SafeWork NSW had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access to the personal and health information of ALZ, resulting in psychological harm. The tribunal was tasked with determining the extent of SafeWork NSW’s liability and the appropriate remedy, if any, for the alleged breaches.

The legal issues that the tribunal had to address included the interpretation and application of the information protection principle and the Health Privacy Principle under relevant privacy legislation. Specifically, the tribunal had to assess whether SafeWork NSW had adhered to the requirement to implement reasonable security safeguards to protect personal and health information from unauthorised access. Additionally, the tribunal needed to evaluate whether the alleged breaches resulted in psychological harm to ALZ and, if so, whether SafeWork NSW was liable for damages.

The tribunal found that SafeWork NSW had indeed failed to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access to ALZ’s personal and health information, which constituted a breach of the privacy principles. The tribunal determined that the breaches caused ALZ psychological harm, warranting compensation. In determining the appropriate remedy, the tribunal considered the severity and impact of the breaches and awarded ALZ damages of $5,000. The tribunal also concluded that no further action was warranted in respect of the matters before it.

SafeWork NSW was ordered to pay ALZ $5,000 in damages for the privacy breaches. The tribunal took no further action regarding the case, thereby finalising the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of organisations adhering to privacy principles to safeguard personal and health information, and the potential legal consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. SafeWork NSW is pay to ALZ damages of $5,000.

2. Otherwise, the Tribunal determines to take no further action on these matters.

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:	ALZ v SafeWork NSW (No 4) [2017] NSWCATAD 1
Hearing dates:	18 February 2016
Date of orders:	04 January 2017
Decision date:	04 January 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	1. SafeWork NSW is pay to ALZ damages of $5,000. 2. Otherwise, the Tribunal determines to take no further action on these matters.
Catchwords:	Privacy - information protection principle - personal information -Health information - Health Privacy Principle - retention and security safeguards - reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access - psychological harm - damages
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 1998
Cases Cited:	ALZ v WorkCover NSW (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 122 ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49 ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138 ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 241 AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 JD v NSW Medical Board (No.2) [2006] NSWADT 345 NZ v Department of Housing [2006] NSWADT 173
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	ALZ (Applicant) SafeWork NSW (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: ALZ (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	123291, 133003
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to subsection 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the name of the applicant is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the Tribunal.