Dat v Inner West Council

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	DAT v Inner West Council [2017] NSWCATAD 253
Hearing dates:	7 August 2017
Date of orders:	23 August 2017
Decision date:	23 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Senior Member C Ludlow
Decision:	The application is dismissed.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – privacy – use of personal information – opinion
Legislation Cited:	Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	JD v Department of Health (NSW) [2005] NSWADTAP 44 BN v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 165
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DAT (Applicant) Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/116606

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant has sought review of conduct by the respondent which he says is in breach of s 16 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (“the PPIP Act’).

2. The conduct concerned the use of personal information to place a direction to Council staff on the Council intranet. The effect of the direction was that Council staff were restricted in the responses they may provide to any further correspondence from the applicant concerning a property at St Peters.

3. The direction stated:

“No responses will be given regarding matters already raised in the regards to the approved use at [address of property]. Future correspondence about this issue will be read and filed without acknowledgement, unless Council staff decide it requires further action.”

4. Section 4(1) of the PPIP Act defines “personal information” as meaning:

“…information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion.”

5. Section 16 of the PPIP Act provides:

“16 Agency must check accuracy of personal information before use

A public sector agency that holds personal information must not use the information without taking such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is relevant, accurate, up to date, complete and not misleading.’

6. The respondent conceded that information about the applicant contained in a letter from the General Manager to the applicant dated 31 July 2016, was an opinion about the applicant and therefore constituted “personal information”.

7. The letter referred to ongoing correspondence by the applicant in relation to a property. It stated:

“The matters which you have raised have been the subject of extensive investigation by council officers. As you have been previously advised, Marrickville Council has determined that it does not consider it appropriate for Council to intervene and has advised you that it intends to take no further action in relation to this matter.”

8. The letter contained the following opinion:

1. the staff resources required to respond to DAT’s repeated complaints were disproportionate to that provided to other residents;

2. this had had an unreasonable impact on the organisation, staff and service provided to other residents; and

3. the General Manager considered it necessary…