Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Budd v Federal Privacy Commissioner [2007] FCAFC 24

PAMELA JOAN BUDD v FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
NSD 1826 OF 2006

SPENDER, KIEFEL AND RARES JJ
23 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1826 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	PAMELA JOAN BUDD Appellant
AND:	FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, KIEFEL AND RARES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	23 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1826 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	PAMELA JOAN BUDD Appellant
AND:	FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

JUDGES:	SPENDER, KIEFEL AND RARES JJ
DATE:	23 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Allsop J (‘the primary judge’) given on 30 August 2006 dismissing an application by Pamela Joan Budd, (‘the appellant’), for judicial review of a decision of the Privacy Commissioner made under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the Act’) declining to investigate a complaint of an alleged breach of privacy by Centrelink.

2. The amended notice of appeal filed by the appellant pursuant to orders made by Branson J on 25 October 2006 provides as follows:

   ‘1.I suffer from Agoraphobia and Social Phobia – due to my condition, I’m unable to do a normal Court hearing which means I need special consideration for a ‘phone link’ and to be heard on the papers.

   2.I have not had the opportunity to have all my actual documents from ‘A – F’ of the exhibits reviewed in the original decision.

   3.The presiding Judge – Judge Allsop, I feel erred in his original decision as he failed to grant me a proper opportunity to have all the documents reviewed.  This caused an incorrect review which denied me my own natural rights to justice.  Under the grounds of this appeal some of the documents that should have been reviewed have a relevance to the matter of privacy infringements – such documents that should have been reviewed eg:  a)  Centrelink Letter 5^th November 2002 [Restoration of Pension]; b) I’m presenting professional Psychiatric evidence. Tabled at the original review, obtained from Dr Klug (Macquarie Street) and Dr Jungfer (Burwood).  These are supported by Dr Lillian Goodman (Bellevue Hill) family doctor.  Dr Joan Lunz (Bondi).  Dr Christopher Alexandria (Maroubra), Dr Evette Hall (Maroubra), Dr Eri Blass (Coogee), Dr Rodrigues (Fairfield) and other medical practitioners.  Also a document from the SSAT (16^th October 2002).  Also for consideration would be letters from Hon Bob Carr (Premier of NSW); Hon John Faulkner – Senator Public Administration and Home Affairs;…