CEU v University of Technology Sydney

CEU filed a complaint against the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) concerning the alleged misuse of the applicant's health information. The applicant, a student at UTS, claimed that the university had violated the Health Privacy Principles 2, 9, and 11 of the Health Records and Information Protection Act 2003. The applicant alleged that UTS improperly disclosed health information to its administrative units and inaccurately diagnosed alcohol dependence. The case was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues were whether the provision of health information by one administrative unit of UTS to another constituted a 'disclosure' as defined under the Act, the accuracy of the diagnosis of alcohol dependence, and whether the notes collected by the agency were relevant, accurate, or excessive. The court also had to determine whether the diary collected by the agency was relevant or excessive, and if the disclosure of health information occurred as alleged on 21 May 2015.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach Health Privacy Principle 2 by collecting a document from the applicant on 17 April 2015. The letter from Dr Cai to the respondent’s Special Needs Service dated 21 April 2015 did not breach Health Privacy Principle 9. The provision of Dr Cai’s letter dated 21 April 2015 to the Special Needs Service did not breach Health Privacy Principle 11. The Tribunal also found that the provision of health information by Dr Cai to Ms Edwards on 22 May 2015 did not breach Health Privacy Principle 11. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that on 21 May 2015, Ms Widjaja did not disclose the applicant’s health information as alleged to Ms Edwards in breach of Health Privacy Principle 11.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s interlocutory application to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution. It decided to take no further action in the matter and outlined the process for any application for costs to be filed and served. The Tribunal also specified that submissions in reply were to be filed and served within a further 7 days.