BCR v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	BCR v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWCATAD 79
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	17 June 2014
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:	The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Catchwords:	judicial function - relating to - jurisdiction
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Cases Cited:	LG v Attorney Generals Department of NSW [ 2009] NSWADT 141 McNamara (McGrath) v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (2005) 79 ALJR 1789; (2005) HCA 55 N (No. 2) v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSWADT 33 NZ v Attorney-General's Department [2005] NSWADT 103
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	BCR (Applicant) Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (Respondent)
Representation:	BCR (Applicant in person) M Nicoletti (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133286

reasons for decision

1. This matter was commenced in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("the ADT") pursuant to the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act"). On 1 January 2014, the ADT was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ('NCAT'). The present decision is therefore a decision of NCAT. However, because the proceedings to which it relates are 'part heard proceedings' as defined in clause 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, they are to be determined as if that Act had not been enacted (see clause 7(3)(b) of this Schedule).

1. In these reasons the name of the Applicant has been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of his personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as BCR. I have also limited my discussion of the evidence in order to avoid the possibility that the Applicant's identity might be revealed.

1. BCR is seeking review by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("the PPIP Act") in relation to alleged conduct by the Respondent. The conduct in issue is the release of BCR's bank statement and Centrelink income statement to his landlord. This conduct occurred on 28 June 2013.

1. The initial decision was made on 29 July 2013 by an officer of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal ("the CTTT"). The Applicant requested an internal review of the agency's decision. The internal review was concluded on 23 September 2013.

1. The review decision stated:

In my opinion the accidental provision of your bank statement and Centrelink income statement to the landlord was on the face of it a failure to comply with IPP's 10 (where the secondary use of the material was disclosure to the landlord) and 11.

Section 6(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) provides:

Nothing in this Act affects the manner in which a court or tribunal, or the manner in which the holder of an…