BSU v Workers Compensation Commission - [2015] NSWCATAD 125

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BSU v Workers Compensation Commission [2015] NSWCATAD 125
Hearing dates: 10 June 2015
Decision date: 19 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: G Walker, Senior Member
Decision:
No further action – want of jurisdiction.

Catchwords: PRIVACY –personal information—jurisdiction of tribunal – judicial functions
WORDS AND PHRASES – “tribunal”
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013; Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Health information and Privacy Act 2002.
Cases Cited: Babaniaris v Lutony Fashions Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 1;
Barratt v Kearns [1905] 1 KB 504;
N (No 2) v Attorney-General’s Department [2002] NSWADT 33;
NZ v Attorney-General’s Department [2005] NSWADT 103, [2005] NSWADTAP 62;
Re A G Becker, Inc (1984) 45 CPC 163 (Ont. HC);
Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.
Texts Cited: Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (4th edn 2014);
Law Commission, Tribunals in New Zealand, Issues Paper 6, January 2008;
Walker, The Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutional Democracy (1988).
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: BSU and BSV (Applicants)
Representation: Solicitor:
BSU and BSV (Applicants in persons)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)

File Number(s): 1510149
Publication restriction: Pursuant to subs 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the name of the applicant and the name of any other person from which the name of the applicant and the name of any other person from which the name of the applicant could be identified is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the Tribunal.

Judgment

The applicants, whose names are anonymized to BSU and BSV, applied to this tribunal on 9 March 2015 for review of the conduct of the respondent, the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The ground of appeal stated in the application was “Disclosure of private medical information on Google for approximately 1 year”. The parties’ claim appears to be based on alleged contravention of the information protection principle in s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIP Act) and the health privacy principle in schedule 1, cl 11(1) of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (the HRIP Act). Several other provisions are mentioned in their submissions, but those appear to be the substantive basis of their case.
The underlying facts of the case are not in dispute. The first applicant suffered a leg injury at work on 22 December 2003 and through his then solicitors made an application to the commission for compensation on 6 July 2012. On 23 May 2013, Mr Craig Tanner, an arbitrator with the respondent, issued a certificate of determination in respect of the proceedings brought by the first applicant: s 58 documents, No.4 (except where otherwise indicated, all documents referred to in these reasons are to be found in the s 58 documents). It is not disputed that the certificate contained “personal information” under ss 4 and 4A of the PPIP Act and…

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 BSU v Workers Compensation Commission 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 125
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved BSU, a company, and the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute centred around the handling of personal information by the Workers Compensation Commission and whether it constituted a judicial function. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the tribunal and whether the actions taken by the Workers Compensation Commission were judicial in nature. Specifically, the court had to determine if the tribunal's handling of personal information fell within the scope of its judicial functions, and if the tribunal had the authority to make decisions regarding privacy matters.

The court examined the relevant legislation and the functions of the Workers Compensation Commission. It found that the tribunal's actions in handling personal information did not constitute a judicial function as defined by the law. The court reasoned that the tribunal's role in managing personal information was administrative rather than judicial, and thus, it did not have the necessary jurisdiction to address privacy concerns. Consequently, the court ruled that the tribunal lacked the authority to make decisions on matters involving privacy and personal information.

Given the court's determination that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to handle privacy issues, the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court did not proceed to make any further orders, as it found that the tribunal's actions were beyond its legal mandate. The decision highlighted the distinction between administrative and judicial functions within tribunals and reinforced the need for tribunals to operate within the confines of their statutory powers.

Orders

Orders of the court

No further action – 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:	BSU v Workers Compensation Commission [2015] NSWCATAD 125
Hearing dates:	10 June 2015
Decision date:	19 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	G Walker, Senior Member
Decision:	No further action – want of jurisdiction.
Catchwords:	PRIVACY –personal information—jurisdiction of tribunal – judicial functions WORDS AND PHRASES – “tribunal”
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013; Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Health information and Privacy Act 2002.
Cases Cited:	Babaniaris v Lutony Fashions Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 1; Barratt v Kearns [1905] 1 KB 504; N (No 2) v Attorney-General’s Department [2002] NSWADT 33; NZ v Attorney-General’s Department [2005] NSWADT 103, [2005] NSWADTAP 62; Re A G Becker, Inc (1984) 45 CPC 163 (Ont. HC); Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.
Texts Cited:	Forbes, Justice in Tribunals (4th edn 2014); Law Commission, Tribunals in New Zealand, Issues Paper 6, January 2008; Walker, The Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutional Democracy (1988).
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	BSU and BSV (Applicants)
Representation:	Solicitor: BSU and BSV (Applicants in persons) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510149
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to subs 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the name of the applicant and the name of any other person from which the name of the applicant and the name of any other person from which the name of the applicant could be identified is not to be published or broadcasted without the leave of the Tribunal.