AQG v Crown Solicitor's Office - [2015] NSWCATAD 112

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AQG v Crown Solicitor’s Office [2015] NSWCATAD 112
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 05 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: P Molony, Senior Member
Decision:
The Tribunal orders that this application for review be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Catchwords: Privacy and personal information protection - data quality standard in s 16 does not apply to disclosures – courts and tribunal exception in s 6 requires exercise of judicial function to apply – no compliance with Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 reasonably contemplated by Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules 1998
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988
Cases Cited: BCR v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWCATAD 79
Department of Education and Communities v VK (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 61
LG v Attorney General's Department of NSW (2009) NSWADT 141
NZ v Attorney-General's Department [2005] NSWADT 103
McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All E.R. 1034
PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59
Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales v Curtin [2006] NSWADT 271
Texts Cited: NSW Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation Premier’s Memorandum 1997-26 Litigation Involving Government Authorities
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: AQG (Applicant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
Representation: AQG (Applicant in person)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 133218
Publication restriction: Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013-Restriction on publication of information that will identify the applicant.

reasons for decision

Background

In this case the applicant’s name has been anonymised to AQG in order to protect the privacy of his personal information.
On 18 April 2013 AQG made an application to the Department of Attorney General and Justice, on behalf of the Office of the Crown Solicitor, for an internal review of conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (the PIPPA Act). In a letter accompanying the application he explained:

“My privacy complaint involves what I considered to be serious misconduct by Kay Sato of the office of Crown solicitor that was personally sanctioned by Ian Knight in clear breach of the privacy statutes.
It is common knowledge that information pertaining to me supposedly compiled by Kay Sato and included in a submission to the ADT with the signed approval of the NSW Crown solicitor Ian Knight was false.
This is not the first time that staff employed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office have submitted information that they either did not know or should have known was false in submissions to the ADT with the approval of Ian Knight.
I am requesting that an officer independent of the Crown Solicitors Office be allocated to investigate this Privacy Complaint Internal Review relating to legal officers employed by the Crown Solicitor’s Solicitors office.”

The conduct complained of by AQG in his privacy complaint was:

Recording of false misleading & incomplete information…

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 AQG v Crown Solicitor's Office 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: [2015] NSWCATAD 112
Decision Date: 05 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AQG filed an application for review against the Crown Solicitor's Office, seeking a declaration that the latter's handling of personal information was unlawful under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether certain disclosures of personal information complied with the requirements of that Act. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The legal issues that the Tribunal had to address were whether the data quality standard in section 16 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act applied to the disclosures in question, and if so, whether there was a failure to comply with the standard. The Tribunal also had to determine if the court and tribunal exception in section 6 of the Act applied and whether the Crown Solicitor's Office's actions could be justified under that exception. Another issue was whether the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) mandated compliance with the privacy legislation.

The Tribunal found that the data quality standard did not apply to the disclosures, as they were made under a court and tribunal exception. This exception requires the exercise of judicial function to apply. The Tribunal held that the Crown Solicitor's Office's actions were not subject to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act as it was not reasonably contemplated by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Consequently, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision, and the application for review was dismissed.

The Tribunal's final order was that the application for review be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This meant that AQG's claim against the Crown Solicitor's Office was unsuccessful, and the Tribunal did not have the authority to intervene in the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that this application for review be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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:	AQG v Crown Solicitor’s Office [2015] NSWCATAD 112
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	05 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	P Molony, Senior Member
Decision:	The Tribunal orders that this application for review be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Catchwords:	Privacy and personal information protection - data quality standard in s 16 does not apply to disclosures – courts and tribunal exception in s 6 requires exercise of judicial function to apply – no compliance with Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 reasonably contemplated by Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Rules 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988
Cases Cited:	BCR v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWCATAD 79 Department of Education and Communities v VK (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 61 LG v Attorney General's Department of NSW (2009) NSWADT 141 NZ v Attorney-General's Department [2005] NSWADT 103 McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All E.R. 1034 PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59 Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales v Curtin [2006] NSWADT 271
Texts Cited:	NSW Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation Premier’s Memorandum 1997-26 Litigation Involving Government Authorities
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	AQG (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
Representation:	AQG (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133218
Publication restriction:	Section 64 (1) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013-Restriction on publication of information that will identify the applicant.