Budd v Privacy Commissioner

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Budd v Privacy Commissioner [2006] FCA 1205
PAMELA JOAN BUDD v PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
NSD 143 OF 2006
ALLSOP J
5 SEPTEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 143 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

PAMELA JOAN BUDD
Applicant

AND:

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 SEPTEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Order 2 dated 30 August 2006 be rescinded.

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 143 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

PAMELA JOAN BUDD
Applicant

AND:

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP J

DATE:

5 SEPTEMBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In dealing with the reasons for my decision of 30 August 2006, I overlooked that the respondent did not seek an order for costs. This was set out in the submission by the respondent at paragraph 51 in the Respondent’s Outline of Submissions that were filed in this Court on 13 July 2006.
With this in mind, the orders that I had made on the 30 August 2006 in the matter NSD 143 of 2006 should be so varied to reflect this submission of the respondent.
The orders of the Court will be:
1.That order 2 dated 30 August 2006 be rescinded.

I certify that the preceding four (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.
Associate:
Dated: 5 September 2006

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in Person by telephone

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Markus

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 26 July 2006

Date of Judgment: 5 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Budd, the appellant, and the Privacy Commissioner, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was a challenge to the Privacy Commissioner's decision to release certain information held by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to the media. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of section 119 of the *Privacy Act 1988* (Cth) and the *Taxpayers' Charter*, specifically whether the Privacy Commissioner had the authority to disclose personal information held by the ATO. The court had to determine whether the release of the information complied with the provisions of the *Privacy Act* and whether the Commissioner's decision was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.

The court found that the Privacy Commissioner had the authority under section 119 of the *Privacy Act* to disclose personal information in certain circumstances, particularly where it was necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious risk to the life, health, or safety of any individual. The court held that the Commissioner's decision to release the information was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The court concluded that the release of the information was necessary to protect the public interest and did not breach the *Taxpayers' Charter*. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 143 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	PAMELA JOAN BUDD Applicant
AND:	PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 SEPTEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	5 SEPTEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in Person by telephone
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr A Markus
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	26 July 2006
Date of Judgment:	5 September 2006