Budd v Director, Attorney Generals Department - [2006] NSWSC 1267

CITATION: Budd v Director, Attorney Generals Department [2006] NSWSC 1267

HEARING DATE(S): 16/11/06

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11/17/2006

DECISION: The appeal is dismissed. In addition to dismissing the summons filed on 21 February 2006, the summons filed on 11 May 2006 is dismissed, to the extent that it purports to be filed in these proceedings ; The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS: Exclusion of conduct involving the holder of an office relating to a court exercising the court's judicial functions from the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Local Court (Criminal and Applications Procedure) Rule 2003
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CASES CITED: Housing Commission (New South Wales) v Tamar Pastoral Co (1983) 3 NSWLR 378
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Ryde Local Court [2005] NSW CA 101, 62 NSWLR 512
N(2) v Director General, Attorney General's Department [2002] NSW ADT 33
NZ Director General, Attorney General's Department (GD) [2005] NSW ADT AP 62
Our Town FM Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR 465
Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings (Pty Limited) (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Tooheys Limited v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1961) 105 CLR 602

PARTIES: Pamela Joan Budd (Appellant)
Director, Attorney Generals Department (Respondent))

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30018/06

COUNSEL: Self Represented (Appellant)
A Mitchelmore (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Self Represented (Appellant)
Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Administrative Decisions Tribunal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 059031

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hennessy N; Higgins S; Bolt M

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 10/5/05

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: NZ v Attorney General's Department [2005] NSWADTAP 62

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Friday 17 November 2006

030018/06 - PAMELA JOAN BUDD v DIRECTOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced by summons filed on 21 February 2006. The plaintiff is not legally represented. It has not been in issue on the hearing of the proceedings that she suffers from a condition known as agoraphobia and a related condition described as social phobia. These conditions make it difficult for the plaintiff to leave her home.

2 In a written application, the plaintiff sought to have the proceedings conducted by telephone. The defendant, whom I will refer to as the Director General, consented to that course. I made an order pursuant to r 31.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (the UCPR), that the Plaintiff's submissions be received by telephone.

3 The summons appears to have been drawn by the Plaintiff without the benefit of legal assistance. It is stated to be an appeal pursuant to s 119 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. That section confers a right of appeal on a party to proceedings before an Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to appeal to the Supreme…

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 Budd v Director, Attorney Generals Department 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: [2006] NSWSC 1267
Decision Date: 17/11/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Budd and the Director of the Attorney General's Department. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, specifically concerning the exclusion of conduct related to the holder of an office in relation to a court exercising its judicial functions. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the conduct of the Director, which involved handling personal information of a former court employee, was exempt from the provisions of the Act due to the Director's role in relation to the court.

The central legal issue revolved around the scope and application of the exclusion clause within the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The exclusion clause in question pertains to conduct involving the holder of an office in relation to a court exercising its judicial functions. The court had to decide whether the Director's handling of personal information, which included sensitive information about a former court employee, fell within this exemption. The court examined the legislative intent behind the exclusion clause and whether the Director's actions were sufficiently connected to the judicial functions of the court to warrant exemption from the Act.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the statutory language and legislative intent of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The court determined that the exclusion clause was narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of judicial functions and did not extend to the administrative or managerial duties of the Director. The handling of personal information by the Director, even if related to a court employee, did not constitute conduct directly involving the court's judicial functions. Therefore, the court held that the Director's actions were not exempt from the Act's provisions. The court emphasised that the exclusion should be narrowly construed to avoid undermining the broader protections afforded by the Act.

The court's final order was that the Director's handling of the personal information was not exempt from the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The court directed that the Director's actions were subject to the scrutiny and provisions of the Act, and any further handling of the personal information must comply with the Act's requirements. The decision reinforced the importance of interpreting statutory exclusions narrowly to maintain the balance between protecting judicial functions and upholding privacy rights.

Orders