DPD v Far West Local Health District - [2020] NSWCATAD 141

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: DPD v Far West Local Health District [2020] NSWCATAD 141
Hearing dates: 15 November 2019, 6 December 2019, (submissions closed 1 February 2020)
Date of orders: 27 May 2020
Decision date: 27 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J McAteer Senior Member
Decision:
(1)   The decision of the respondent is affirmed in part.
(2) Pursuant to s 55 (2) of the PPIP Act, on reviewing the conduct of the respondent public sector agency, the Tribunal decides not to take any action on the matter.
(3)   The request for a non-publication order is refused.
(4)   The respondent application for costs is refused.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Privacy – Personal Information – Use of personal information – Accuracy of personal information – whether reasonable steps taken to check accuracy – disclosure of personal information

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Health Practitioner National Law (NSW)
Health Services Act 1997
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

Cases Cited:
AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 23
DAT v Inner West Council [2017] NSWCATAD 253
Dawood v Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd t/as DG Institute (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 295
DHU v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2018] NSWCATAP282
Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT [2005] NSWADTAP 77
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409
DQA v Secretary Department of Family and Community Services [2019] NSWCATAD 156
DQP v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 201
FM v Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78
JD v Department of Health [GD] [2005] NSWADTAP 44
JD v Medical Board (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 345
OD v Department of Education and Training [2006] NSWADT 312
Pascale v City of Parramatta [2017] NSWCATAD 332
XW v Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 73

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: DPD (Applicant)
Far West Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00138747
Publication restriction: Section 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of the applicant.

Reasons for decision

On 3 May 2019 the applicant ‘DPD’ lodged an application for administrative review with the Tribunal. That application relates to an Internal Review which the applicant sought concerning a privacy grievance with an employer the Far Western Local Health District (FWLHD). The FWLHD is the respondent in these proceedings.
The matter centres around DPD’s belief that employees or agents of the FWLHD have spread information concerning their behaviour and competencies as a health care practitioner. As a result of these matters DPD alleges that they has been the subject of detrimental conduct in the workplace and has also been denied employment opportunities by way of missing out on contracts for term placements.
DPD is the applicant’s pseudonym, in that the Tribunal has…

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 DPD v Far West Local Health District 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: [2020] NSWCATAD 141
Decision Date: 27 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of DPD v Far West Local Health District, the Central Administrative Tribunal was called upon to review the actions of the respondent in handling the complainant's personal information. The complainant, DPD, sought redress for alleged breaches of privacy under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (NSW) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). The dispute centred on whether the respondent took reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of personal information and whether it disclosed this information appropriately.

The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the respondent had adhered to the requirements of the privacy legislation in its management of the complainant's personal information. This involved assessing the measures taken by the respondent to verify the accuracy of the information and examining the circumstances under which the information was disclosed. The tribunal also needed to consider the implications of any potential breaches on the complainant's privacy rights.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the tribunal found that while the respondent had not taken all possible steps to verify the accuracy of the personal information, the overall handling of the matter did not warrant a finding of significant breach. The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent's actions, in the context of the particular circumstances, did not constitute a serious infringement of the complainant's privacy rights. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision in part but opted not to take further action under section 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. Additionally, the requests for a non-publication order and for the respondent to bear the costs were both denied.

The tribunal's final orders affirmed the respondent's actions in part, declined to take further action, and refused both the non-publication order and the respondent's application for costs. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to privacy legislation but also acknowledges the nuanced context in which public sector agencies operate.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in part.

(2) Pursuant to s 55 (2) of the PPIP Act, on reviewing the conduct of the respondent public sector agency, the Tribunal decides not to take any action on the matter.

(3) The request for a non-publication order is refused.

(4) The respondent application for costs is refused.

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:	DPD v Far West Local Health District [2020] NSWCATAD 141
Hearing dates:	15 November 2019, 6 December 2019, (submissions closed 1 February 2020)
Date of orders:	27 May 2020
Decision date:	27 May 2020
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J McAteer Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The decision of the respondent is affirmed in part. (2) Pursuant to s 55 (2) of the PPIP Act, on reviewing the conduct of the respondent public sector agency, the Tribunal decides not to take any action on the matter. (3) The request for a non-publication order is refused. (4) The respondent application for costs is refused.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Privacy – Personal Information – Use of personal information – Accuracy of personal information – whether reasonable steps taken to check accuracy – disclosure of personal information
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Health Practitioner National Law (NSW) Health Services Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 23 DAT v Inner West Council [2017] NSWCATAD 253 Dawood v Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd t/as DG Institute (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAP 295 DHU v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2018] NSWCATAP282 Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT [2005] NSWADTAP 77 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409 DQA v Secretary Department of Family and Community Services [2019] NSWCATAD 156 DQP v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 201 FM v Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78 JD v Department of Health [GD] [2005] NSWADTAP 44 JD v Medical Board (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 345 OD v Department of Education and Training [2006] NSWADT 312 Pascale v City of Parramatta [2017] NSWCATAD 332 XW v Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 73
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	DPD (Applicant) Far West Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/00138747
Publication restriction:	Section 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of the applicant.