CBL v Southern Cross University - [2018] NSWCATAD 97

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CBL v Southern Cross University [2018] NSWCATAD 97
Hearing dates: 30 October 2017
Date of orders: 14 May 2018
Decision date: 14 May 2018
Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:
The respondent’s decision of 4 October 2016 is affirmed

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PRIVACY – personal information – solicitation - collection – lawful purpose – disclosure – disclosure within an agency – confidential information – no disclosure
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994
Cases Cited: AQK v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 55
CTH v The University of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAD 244
Department of Education and Training v GA (No.3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50
Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44
KJ v Wentworth Area Health Service [2004] NSWADT 84
KO & KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 18
VZ v University of Newcastle [2011] NSWADT 245
ZR v NSW Department of Education and Training (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 69
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: CBL (Applicant)
Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant in person
Southern Cross University (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/00378474
Publication restriction: Section 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of the applicant and any witnesses whose identities are redacted which might constructively identify those persons.

reasons for decision

On 25 October 2016, CBL (“the Applicant”) applied to the Tribunal for a review under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (“PPIP Act”) of certain conduct by the employees and officers of Southern Cross University (“the Respondent”).
CBL is the applicant’s pseudonym, in that the Tribunal has de-identified the applicant’s name from any open reasons consistent with the practice of the Tribunal in privacy reviews. This is an application for a review of the conduct of the Respondent Public Sector Agency, which was subject to an Internal Review application under Part 5 of the PPIP Act.
The Tribunal has reviewed the conduct which fell within the scope of the Internal Review and for the reasons that follow, finds that there is no breach of an Information Protection Principle (IPP) under the PPIP Act.

Background

In October 2011 an electronic rule was set up within the Respondent’s email system, by which any emails from the Applicant's known email addresses were automatically redirected to the Respondent's Legal Unit at legal@scu.edu.au. This rule was set up at the request of the then Vice Chancellor.
On 15 August 2016, the Applicant requested an internal review pursuant to s. 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (PPIP Act). The Applicant’s complaint was in the following terms:

The conduct of the University about which I am complaining is the interception of emails from me to specific persons within the University,…

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 CBL v Southern Cross University 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: [2018] NSWCATAD 97
Decision Date: 14 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of CBL v Southern Cross University involved a dispute concerning the handling of personal information by the respondent, Southern Cross University. The applicant, CBL, sought a review of the university's decision regarding the collection and disclosure of personal information. The central issue was whether the collection and disclosure of the personal information by the university was lawful under the Australian Privacy Act 1988. Specifically, the applicant challenged the university’s collection of personal information for the purpose of soliciting donations and its subsequent disclosure of that information within the organisation.

The court considered whether the university’s actions complied with the privacy principles outlined in the Privacy Act. The key issue was whether the collection and disclosure of personal information was for a lawful purpose. The court examined whether the university had a proper basis for collecting and disclosing the personal information, considering the circumstances in which the information was obtained and the purposes for which it was used. Additionally, the court assessed whether the disclosure of the personal information within the university was necessary for a related purpose and whether it was handled in a manner consistent with privacy obligations.

In its decision, the court affirmed the respondent’s decision of 4 October 2016. The court found that the university’s collection and disclosure of personal information were lawful under the Privacy Act. The court concluded that the university had a proper basis for collecting the information for the purpose of soliciting donations and that the subsequent internal disclosure was necessary for a related purpose. The court emphasised that the university's handling of the personal information was consistent with privacy obligations, as the disclosure was limited and the information was treated as confidential. Therefore, the court upheld the university’s decision, finding that the collection and disclosure of personal information were lawful.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent’s decision of 4 October 2016 is affirmed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	CBL v Southern Cross University [2018] NSWCATAD 97
Hearing dates:	30 October 2017
Date of orders:	14 May 2018
Decision date:	14 May 2018
Before:	D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:	The respondent’s decision of 4 October 2016 is affirmed
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – PRIVACY – personal information – solicitation - collection – lawful purpose – disclosure – disclosure within an agency – confidential information – no disclosure
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994
Cases Cited:	AQK v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 55 CTH v The University of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAD 244 Department of Education and Training v GA (No.3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44 KJ v Wentworth Area Health Service [2004] NSWADT 84 KO & KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 18 VZ v University of Newcastle [2011] NSWADT 245 ZR v NSW Department of Education and Training (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 69
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	CBL (Applicant) Southern Cross University (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant in person Southern Cross University (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2016/00378474
Publication restriction:	Section 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of the applicant and any witnesses whose identities are redacted which might constructively identify those persons.