Legal Research
Cases
DED v Randwick City Council

DED v Randwick City Council

Case [2017] NSWCATAD 327 10 November 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327
Hearing dates: 20 October 2017
Date of orders: 10 November 2017
Decision date: 10 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: R C Titterton, Principal Member
Decision:
The Tribunal decides to take no further action

Catchwords: Privacy - personal information held by an agency - review of conduct of agency admitted to be a contravention of the information protection principles concerning personal information - alleged unlawful disclosure of the applicant's personal information by an officer of the agency - whether alleged loss or damage suffered because of the alleged contravention by the agency
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited: AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152
AKL v University of Western Sydney [2013] NSWADT 147
APV and APW v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 140
BYW v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 53
Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34
Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50
Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132
FM and FN v Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 288
FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78
Gittani Stone Pty Limited v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355
GR v Director-General, Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 16
JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248
NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263
SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74
WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: DED (Applicant)
Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation: DED (Applicant self-represented)
Marsdens Law Group

File Number(s): 2017/00211102
Publication restriction: An order was made under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting publication or broadcasting of any information that would identify the applicant, his wife UVW, RST, or evidence given and received in the Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application by the applicant, DED (hereafter the applicant or DED).
At DED’s request, the respondent, the Randwick City Council (hereafter the Council or the respondent) conducted an internal review of conduct of the Council resulting in the release of personal information of the applicant to a third party, RST. The Council officer who conducted the internal review concluded that DED’s personal information had been released, and offered him an apology. She also indicated that steps had been taken to improve Council’s internal processes.
DED was not satisfied with the findings of the internal review, nor the action…

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.

Continue reading DED v Randwick City Council

Details

AGLC: DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327
Case: [2017] NSWCATAD 327
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DED v Randwick City Council involved a dispute between the applicant and the respondent regarding the handling of personal information. The applicant, DED, alleged that the respondent, Randwick City Council, had unlawfully disclosed their personal information. The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) was the primary legislation at issue. The case was heard by the Information and Privacy Commission of New South Wales (IPC). The IPC had to determine whether the respondent's conduct constituted a contravention of the information protection principles and whether the applicant suffered any loss or damage as a result.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent had breached the information protection principles by unlawfully disclosing the applicant's personal information. Additionally, the IPC had to consider whether the applicant had suffered any loss or damage due to this alleged contravention. The respondent argued that the disclosure was necessary to comply with a legal obligation and that it did not result in any loss or damage to the applicant. The applicant, on the other hand, maintained that the disclosure was unlawful and that it caused harm.

The IPC examined the evidence presented and found that the respondent's conduct did not constitute a contravention of the information protection principles. The IPC determined that the disclosure was necessary to comply with a legal obligation, which is a permissible reason under the Act. Furthermore, the IPC concluded that the applicant did not suffer any loss or damage as a result of the disclosure. The IPC's findings were based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal provisions.

As a result of its findings, the IPC decided to take no further action in the case. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the protection of personal information with the need to comply with legal obligations. The IPC's determination also highlights the need for agencies to ensure that any disclosure of personal information is necessary and does not result in harm to the individual.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides to take no further action

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.

Actions

Citations

DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327

Most Recent Citation

Jackson v The University of New South Wales (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 271

Cases Citing This Decision

EHG v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 265
Citation 1 (Para 32)

…is not to review the findings of the internal review decision as detailed in the Internal Review Decision (in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51].…
Webb v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWCATAD 191
Citation 2 (Para 38)

…is not to review the findings of the internal review decision as detailed in the Internal Review Decision (in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51].…
Elder v Lithgow City Council [2025] NSWCATAD 100
Citation 3 (Para 27)

…the findings of the internal review decision as detailed in the report (i.e. the Internal Review Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51].…
GGP v Lismore City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 308
Citation 4 (Para 51)

…Tribunal's role is not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51]. Often the internal review decision of an agency can assist the Tribunal's considerations, but the Tribunal must consider the conduct of concern afre…
FMM v Insurance and Care NSW [2023] NSWCATAD 114
Citation 5 (Para 123)

…or HPP which has been found and the psychological injury: AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No. 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 at [29]; DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [60].…
EJX v University of Newcastle [2023] NSWCATAD 53
Citation 6 (Para 29)

…review (and its review is not limited to the findings of) the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51]. Often the internal review decision of an agency can assist the Tribunal's considerations but, in each case, the Tribunal must consider the c…
EEH v NSW Self Insurance Corporation [2022] NSWCATAD 361
Citation 7 (Para 16)

…nal. The Tribunal's role is not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51]. However, often, the internal review decision of an agency can assist the Tribunal's considerations but the Tribunal must consider the conduc…
FMH v Cumberland Council [2022] NSWCATAD 293
Citation 8 (Para 25)

…se). The Tribunal's role is not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [51]. Often the internal review decision of an agency can assist the Tribunal's considerations, but the Tribunal must consider the conduct of conc…
DTN v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 134
Citation 9 (Para 28)

…ondent in this case), it is not to review the findings of the internal review report (ie the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50]. The Tribunal considers the Conduct of Concern and potential breaches of the IPPs and/or HPPs afresh, based on the evidence and material before…
EIG v North Sydney Council [2022] NSWCATAD 127
Citation 10 (Para 62)

…s the subject of the independent review and to make the correct and preferable decision in respect of it: s 63 ADR Act, DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50].…
EJE v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 33
Citation 11 (Para 90)

…h of the PPIP Act and any damage suffered: see AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 at [29]; DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [60].…
CJU v HealthShare NSW [2021] NSWCATAD 372
Citation 12 (Para 28)

…dent in this case), it is not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50]. The Tribunal considers the conduct of concern afresh, based on the evidence and material before it at the time of the hearing: Drake v Ministe…
EIG v North Sydney Council [2021] NSWCATAD 313
Citation 13

…ction Act 1998 (NSW) Cases Cited: AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 23 DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 EEC v Federation Council [2020] NSW CATAP 169 EIG v North Sydney Council [2021] NSWCATAD 66 EMF v Cessnock…
DVT v Commissioner of Police (No 3) [2021] NSWCATAD 290
Citation 14 (Para 50)

…Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: DED v Randwick City Council[2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50] DVT v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 108 DVT v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 195 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs…
EPR v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 237
Citation 15 (Para 11)

…Respondent in this case), not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50]. The Tribunal considers the Conduct of Concern (in this case) afresh, based on the evidence and material before it at the time of the hearing:…
EIG v North Sydney Council [2021] NSWCATAD 66
Citation 16 (Para 31)

…Respondent in this case), not to review the findings of the internal review report (i.e. the IR Decision in this case): DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [50]. The Tribunal considers the conduct of concern afresh, based on the evidence and material before it at the time of the hearing: Drake v Ministe…
DSN v NSW Department of Justice [2019] NSWCATAD 174
Citation 17 (Para 46)

…. The Tribunal cannot conduct a review of any conduct that was not the subject of the application to the relevant agency: DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [23].…
Jackson v The University of New South Wales (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAD 271
Citation 18 (Para 33)

…nal in matters of this kind is settled. A reasonable summary of that approach is set out by Principal Member Titterton in DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at paragraphs [59] – [61]:…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

APV and APW v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 140
Citation 1 (Para 61)

…nduct has caused damage, the applicant is not automatically entitled to compensation: APV and APW v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 140 at [88]; AHG v Snowy River Shire Council at [24].…
BYW v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 53
Citation 2 (Para 23)

…PIP Act is confined in its scope by the initial request for internal review, as reasonably construed: BYW v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 53 at [20]. The Tribunal cannot conduct a review of any conduct that was not the subject of the application to the relevant agency: Department of Educatio…
AKL v University of Western Sydney [2013] NSWADT 147
Citation 3 (Para 59)

…adduce evidence of causation, and establish the causal link between the breach of privacy and the damage suffered: AKL v University of Western Sydney [2013] NSWADT 147 at [58].…
AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152
Citation 4 (Para 61)

…al cases where there has been contraventions of privacy principles but no damages were awarded: see for instance, AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152; MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248; JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247; JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NS…
MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248
Citation 5 (Para 61)

…entions of privacy principles but no damages were awarded: see for instance, AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152; MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248; JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247; JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256; SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSW…
JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247
Citation 6 (Para 61)

…awarded: see for instance, AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152; MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248; JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247; JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256; SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74; FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University…
FM and FN v Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 288
Citation 7 (Para 3)

…erning an award of compensation are set out in cases including WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253 and FM and FN v Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 288.…
Gittani Stone Pty Ltd v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355
Citation 8 (Para 64)

…d as a question of fact, and applying common sense and experience ( March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; Gittani Stone Pty Limited v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355) that the conduct of the Council in allowing the release of the applicant’s personal information caused him to incur the additional expense of enteri…
JD v Director General, NSW Department of Health (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 256
Citation 9 (Para 61)

…2; MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248; JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247; JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256; SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74; FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78. In other words, even if an applicant establishes that an…
WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253
Citation 10 (Para 3)

…The principles governing an award of compensation are set out in cases including WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253 and FM and FN v Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 288.…
SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74
Citation 11 (Para 61)

…48; JS v Snowy River Shire Council [2010] NSWADT 247; JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256; SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74; FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78. In other words, even if an applicant establishes that an agency’s conduct has caused damage…
NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263
Citation 12 (Para 50)

…Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132 at [12]; NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263 at [38]-[43]. In GR the Tribunal stated at [53] that “In Privacy Act cases, the Tribunal undertakes a second review of the conduct in issue … the Tribunal…
Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50
Citation 13 (Para 23)

…onduct a review of any conduct that was not the subject of the application to the relevant agency: Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 at [7]. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction or power to review the conduct of the Council in releasing personal information of UVW.…
KA v Public Guardian & Ors [2004] NSWADTAP 25
Citation 14 (Para 60)

…f a privacy principle and the claimed damage and it is the applicant who bears the onus of establishing that link: GR v Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 25 at [38]. In other words, the burden for the applicant is to establish that he has suffered financial loss, or psychological or physical harm, because of the…
GR v Director-General, Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 16
Citation 15 (Para 50)

…gency, here the Council, and not a review of the respondent’s findings in respect of that conduct: GR v Director-General, Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 16 at [35]; Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132 at [12]; NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [20…
Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer, Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132
Citation 16 (Para 50)

…onduct: GR v Director-General, Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 16 at [35]; Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132 at [12]; NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263 at [38]-[43]. In GR the Tribunal stated at [53] that “In Privacy Act cases,…
FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78
Citation 17 (Para 61)

…rector-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256; SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74; FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78. In other words, even if an applicant establishes that an agency’s conduct has caused damage, the applicant is not automatically entitled to compensation…
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
Citation 18 (Para 68)

…to furnish the trier of fact with criteria enabling evaluation of the validity of the expert’s conclusions: Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 per Heydon JA at [59]. In that decision, his Honour referred with approval to the words of Lord President Cooper in Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates…
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12
Citation 19 (Para 64)

…ile telephone contract. That is to say, I am not satisfied as a question of fact, and applying common sense and experience ( March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506; Gittani Stone Pty Limited v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355) that the conduct of the Council in allowing the release of the applicant’s personal informati…
1953 SC 34 1953 SC 34
Citation 20 (Para 68)

…ur referred with approval to the words of Lord President Cooper in Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34 at 39-40, namely that:…

Legislation Cited

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 3)

Medium Neutral Citation:	DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327
Hearing dates:	20 October 2017
Date of orders:	10 November 2017
Decision date:	10 November 2017
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	R C Titterton, Principal Member
Decision:	The Tribunal decides to take no further action
Catchwords:	Privacy - personal information held by an agency - review of conduct of agency admitted to be a contravention of the information protection principles concerning personal information - alleged unlawful disclosure of the applicant's personal information by an officer of the agency - whether alleged loss or damage suffered because of the alleged contravention by the agency
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	AHG v Snowy River Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 152 AKL v University of Western Sydney [2013] NSWADT 147 APV and APW v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 140 BYW v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 53 Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34 Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 Fitzpatrick v Chief Executive Officer Ambulance Service of NSW [2003] NSWADT 132 FM and FN v Department of Community Services [2008] NSWADT 288 FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78 Gittani Stone Pty Limited v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355 GR v Director-General, Department of Housing [2004] NSWADTAP 16 JD v Director-General, NSW Department of Health (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 256 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 MH v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWADT 248 NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263 SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74 WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DED (Applicant) Randwick City Council (Respondent)
Representation:	DED (Applicant self-represented) Marsdens Law Group
File Number(s):	2017/00211102
Publication restriction:	An order was made under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting publication or broadcasting of any information that would identify the applicant, his wife UVW, RST, or evidence given and received in the Tribunal hearing or in relation to the proceedings which is likely to identify those persons.