BXK v Western Sydney University

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	BXK v Western Sydney University [2016] NSWCATAD 235
Hearing dates:	14 and 15 March 2016
Date of orders:	18 October 2016
Decision date:	18 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Dr J Lucy, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The respondent’s name is changed from University of Western Sydney to Western Sydney University. (2) No action is to be taken on the matter.
Catchwords:	PRIVACY – Scope of application to Tribunal – Whether conduct the subject of Tribunal application was also the subject of the internal review application – Some conduct not the subject of internal review application so beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Whether respondent unlawfully used or disclosed the applicant’s personal or health information – Applicant’s information emailed to others by respondent’s employee in response to a third party’s claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – Employee responded to claim in her personal capacity for purpose extraneous to that of respondent – Conduct not attributable to respondent
Legislation Cited:	Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Western Sydney University Act 1997 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	C.F. [2015] FWC 5272 Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT [2006] NSWCA 270 KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADTAP 56 OD v Department of Education and Training [2005] NSWADTAP 74
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	BXK (Applicant) Western Sydney University (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: B Tronson (Respondent)   Solicitors: BXK (Applicant in person) Thomson Geer (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510316
Publication restriction:	It is prohibited to disclose the name of the applicant, except for the purposes of the proceedings or for the respondent’s reporting requirements. Access to the Tribunal files in this matter, other than by the parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives, is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These proceedings concern the question of whether the respondent (“the University”) breached the applicant’s privacy under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (“PPIP Act”) or the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) (“HRIP Act”) when a University employee sent an email containing the applicant’s personal and health information to persons within and outside of the University.

2. I have found that some of the conduct identified by the applicant in her application to the Tribunal was not the subject of her internal review application, and so is outside the scope of the Tribunal’s review. I have also found that the applicant’s complaints about the University’s alleged use and disclosure of her personal and health information, which are within the scope of the review, cannot be sustained, because the relevant conduct was not engaged in for the University’s purposes and is therefore not attributable to the University.

Non-disclosure orders

3. Early in…