Budd v Privacy Commissioner

[2006] FCA 1131

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Budd v Privacy Commissioner [2006] FCA 1131

PAMELA JOAN BUDD v PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
NSD 143 OF 2006

ALLSOP J
30 AUGUST 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:	30 AUGUST 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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:	30 AUGUST 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks an order for judicial review of a decision made by the Privacy Commissioner (the respondent) declining to investigate the applicant’s complaint under s 41(1)(d) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

2. The application lacks any coherent basis of complaint.  That said, the applicant feels strongly that she has had her privacy infringed by Centrelink.

3. At the time of commencing the proceeding, the applicant informed the Court that she suffers from agoraphobia and was unable to come to Court.  A regime for the filing of evidence was arranged to overcome this.

4. Voluminous, repetitive and ill-organised material was filed by the applicant.  It supported no coherent ground of complaint about the conduct of the respondent.  The transcript of the hearing reflects the attempts made to organise the various bundles of material that the applicant wished to put forward.  All documents that the applicant said at the hearing she wished to be before the Court were submitted into evidence.

5. It would be entirely unproductive to attempt to summarise this mass of documents and information put forward by the applicant.  The respondent filed a clear and comprehensive affidavit of the effective decision-maker, Ms Clare Vinecombe describing the course of events and the contents of the file.  The following description of the relevant facts revealed by that affidavit is unaffected by the voluminous paper produced by the applicant for the proceeding.  A recitation of the facts and an appreciation of the content of the affidavit of Ms Vinecombe reveals that there is no basis to criticise, legally or otherwise, the respondent’s conduct.

6. On or about 28 February 2005 the office of the respondent received an allegation of the breach of Ms Budd’s privacy by Centrelink. The allegation appeared to concern what was said to have been Centrelink’s breach of privacy by allowing other clients to act under her name leading to the affectation of her pension. On 15 March 2005, the delegate (Ms Vinecombe) sent a letter to the applicant informing her that she had decided to decline to investigate her complaint under s 41(1)(d) of the Act on the basis that the complaint was lacking in substance. The letter contained a paragraph which informed the applicant that from the information that had…