EEC v Federation Council - [2020] NSWCATAD 169

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: EEC v Federation Council [2020] NSWCATAD 169
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 02 July 2020
Decision date: 02 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: P H Molony, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) Under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal prohibits the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification.
(2)   The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing with respect to the extension of time issue.
(3) Time is extended under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to enable the applicant to make this application for administrative review.
(4)   The Tribunal is not satisfied that the substantive application can be adequately determined on the papers at this time.
(5)   This matter is to be listed for a telephone hearing before me at a time and date to be fixed by the Registrar.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 - administrative review – application out of time – extension of time granted.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – whether materials lodged by parties sufficient to dispense with hearing.
HUMAN RIGHTS - Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 - adequacy of review of conduct under s 53.

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998

Cases Cited:
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30, 93 ALR 479
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22
VA v Premier’s Department [2006] NSWADT 249
WL v Randwick City Council (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 58
XW v Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 7

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: EEC (Applicant)
Federation Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self Represented)
J Shannon (Authorised Officer) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00015190
Publication restriction: Section 64(1) – The Tribunal prohibits the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

EEC has made an application for administrative review of conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)(the PPIPA). The alleged conduct is that of the Federation Council in disclosing, to at least one known individual, that EEC, a resident of the Council area, had:

Told someone I [wrote] 9 letters about Familys Tip in town.

As is the usual practice with reviews under the PPIPA I will make an order under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act) prohibiting the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification.
In these reasons the applicant is referred to as EEC.
EEC made the application for administrative review on 16 January 2020 after the Federation Council had…

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 EEC v Federation Council

Details

AGLC: EEC v Federation Council [2020] NSWCATAD 169
Case: [2020] NSWCATAD 169
Decision Date: 02 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of EEC v Federation Council involved an applicant seeking to challenge the adequacy of a review conducted under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The application was lodged out of time, and the matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant sought an extension of time to bring the application and also sought an order prohibiting the disclosure of their identity.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's application was out of time and, if not, whether an extension of time should be granted. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the application could be adequately determined on the papers or if a hearing was necessary. Finally, the Tribunal needed to decide whether the applicant's name and identifying information could be protected from disclosure.

The Tribunal found that while the application was indeed out of time, it granted an extension of time under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to allow the applicant to make the administrative review application. The Tribunal determined that sufficient materials had been lodged by the parties to address the issue of the extension of time, thus dispensing with the need for a hearing on that matter. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the substantive application could be adequately determined on the papers at that time. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be listed for a telephone hearing to allow for a more thorough examination of the substantive issues.

The final orders of the Tribunal included prohibiting the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of any material that identifies them or is likely to lead to their identification. Additionally, the Tribunal set the matter down for a telephone hearing to explore the substantive issues further. This decision ensures that the applicant’s privacy is protected while also providing a procedural path forward for the substantive review of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 review.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal prohibits the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification.

(2) The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing with respect to the extension of time issue.

(3) Time is extended under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to enable the applicant to make this application for administrative review.

(4) The Tribunal is not satisfied that the substantive application can be adequately determined on the papers at this time.

(5) This matter is to be listed for a telephone hearing before me at a time and date to be fixed by the Registrar.

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:	EEC v Federation Council [2020] NSWCATAD 169
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	02 July 2020
Decision date:	02 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	P H Molony, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Under s 64 (1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the Tribunal prohibits the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification. (2) The Tribunal dispenses with a hearing with respect to the extension of time issue. (3) Time is extended under s 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 to enable the applicant to make this application for administrative review. (4) The Tribunal is not satisfied that the substantive application can be adequately determined on the papers at this time. (5) This matter is to be listed for a telephone hearing before me at a time and date to be fixed by the Registrar.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 - administrative review – application out of time – extension of time granted. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 – whether materials lodged by parties sufficient to dispense with hearing. HUMAN RIGHTS - Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 - adequacy of review of conduct under s 53.
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Cases Cited:	Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30, 93 ALR 479 Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 VA v Premier’s Department [2006] NSWADT 249 WL v Randwick City Council (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 58 XW v Department of Education and Training [2009] NSWADT 7
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	EEC (Applicant) Federation Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) J Shannon (Authorised Officer) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/00015190
Publication restriction:	Section 64(1) – The Tribunal prohibits the disclosure of the applicant’s name or of material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification.