AQO v Pearce

[2017] NSWCATAD 268

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	AQO v Pearce [2017] NSWCATAD 268
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	06 September 2017
Decision date:	06 September 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	The application for costs is dismissed.
Catchwords:	Costs – special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Cases Cited:	AQO v Gregory Pearce MLC [2014] NSWCATAD 210 AQO v Minister for Finance and Services [2016] NSWCA 248 AT v NSW Police [2010] NSWCA 131 Bischoff v Sahade & Owners Corporation SP 62022 [2015] NSWCATAP 196 Department of Attorney General and Justice v Schoeman [2012] NSW ADTAP 31 eMove Pty Ltd v Naomi Dickinson [2015] NSWCATAP Megerditchian v Kurmond Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 120 Nguyen & Anor v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd; Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Nguyen & Anor (no 2) [2016] NSWCATAP 168 Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38 Pearce v AQO [2015] NSWCATAP 162
Category:	Costs
Parties:	AQO (Applicant) Gregory Stephen Pearce (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Harris & Harris Solicitors (Applicant) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00378427, 1610673
Publication restriction:	Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies in relation to the Applicant’s identity. The Applicant’s identity is not to be disclosed to the public without further order of the tribunal

reasons for decision

1. This is an application by AQO (“the Applicant”) seeking an order that the Respondent pay his costs of the first instance matter before the Tribunal. The Respondent opposes that application.

2. The substantive matter concerned a complaint by the Applicant alleging that the Respondent had breached his privacy in relation to a media release issued by the Respondent, in his capacity as Minister for Finance and Services. The media release included anonymised case studies and the Applicant considered that details contained in one of the case studies related to his specific circumstances.

3. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent had obtained and used his personal information for the purposes of the media release. He applied to the Respondent under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (“the PPIP Act”) and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (“the HRIP Act”) for review of the Respondent’s alleged conduct.

4. At first instance, the Respondent raised an issue of jurisdiction concerning the application to a Minister of the Crown of the definition of "public sector agency" for the purposes of section 3(1) of the PPIP Act and section 4 of the HRIP Act. The Applicant was successful at first instance in his contention that the Minister was a public sector agency: AQO v Gregory Pearce MLC [2014] NSWCATAD 210. An appeal to the Appeal Panel in respect of the jurisdictional question was allowed, and the application for review dismissed: Pearce v AQO [2015] NSWCATAP 162.

5. On appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the jurisdictional…