EHG v The Hon Yasmin Catley MP - [2025] NSWCATAD 176

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: EHG v The Hon Yasmin Catley MP [2025] NSWCATAD 176
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 23 July 2025
Decision date: 23 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:
The application for administrative review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) – reviewable decision - Public sector agency – jurisdiction

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2013) (NSW)
Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW)
Government Sector Audit Regulation 2021
Government Sector Finance Act 1983 (NSW)
Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (NSW)
Government Sector Finance Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2018 (NSW)
Members of Parliament Staff Act 2013 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Public Sector Finance Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2018 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AQO v Minister for Finance and Services [2016] NSWCA 248
Baini v R [2012] HCA 59
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1982) 175 CLR 408
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v FYH [2024] NSWCATAP 176
Department of Education and Training v GA (No 23) [2004] NSWCATAP 50
EJE v Department of Education [2023] NSWCATAD 132
Grain Growers Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2016] NSWCA 259
ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2004) 60 NSWLR 18
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR at 12-13.
Project Blue Sky Inc v ABA (1998) 194 CLR
Singh BHNF Ambu Anwar v Lynch [2020] NSWCA 152
State of New South Wales v Williamson [2011] NSWCA 183
The Owners – Strata Plan 87003 v Raysons Constructions Pty LTD [2025] NSWSC 66
Vella v Mir [2019] NSWCATAP 28 at [48].
Watkins v Tasman Tourism Pty Limited [2024] NSWCATAP 263

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: EHG (Applicant)
The Hon Yasmin Catley MP (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Birch (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00104056
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of the Applicant or reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the Applicant or is likely to lead to the identification of the Applicant is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for administrative review under s 55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (the PPIPA) lodged by EHG (the applicant) with respect to a decision made by the Hon Yasmin Catley (the Minister) to disclose his name to the Hon Cameron Murphy AM MLC (the Member). The applicant alleges that the Minister’s decision contravened s 18 of the PPIPA by disclosing his personal information.
The Privacy Commissioner did not appear or participate in the matter.

Background

On 17 July 2024, the Minister decided to refuse the applicant’s application for an ex-gratia payment. The Minister’s decision was informed by a…

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 EHG v The Hon Yasmin Catley MP 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: [2025] NSWCATAD 176
Decision Date: 23 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

EHG initiated legal proceedings against The Hon Yasmin Catley MP in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Health. The applicant alleged that the Minister's decision to share their personal information with a third party was unlawful under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). EHG contended that the Minister did not have the authority to disclose their personal information and that the decision violated their privacy rights.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister's decision constituted a "reviewable decision" under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (NSW) and whether the Land and Environment Court had jurisdiction to review this decision. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) applied to the Minister's decision and whether there was a breach of privacy laws.

The court found that the Minister's decision did not qualify as a "reviewable decision" under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (NSW). Consequently, the Land and Environment Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Minister's decision. The court held that the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) did not apply to the Minister's decision, as it was not made in the course of carrying out a function or exercising a power of an administrative character. Therefore, the applicant's claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for administrative review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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:	EHG v The Hon Yasmin Catley MP [2025] NSWCATAD 176
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	23 July 2025
Decision date:	23 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	M Riordan, Senior Member
Decision:	The application for administrative review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) – reviewable decision - Public sector agency – jurisdiction
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (2013) (NSW) Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW) Government Sector Audit Regulation 2021 Government Sector Finance Act 1983 (NSW) Government Sector Finance Act 2018 (NSW) Government Sector Finance Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2018 (NSW) Members of Parliament Staff Act 2013 (NSW) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) Public Sector Finance Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2018 (NSW) Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AQO v Minister for Finance and Services [2016] NSWCA 248 Baini v R [2012] HCA 59 Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1982) 175 CLR 408 Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v FYH [2024] NSWCATAP 176 Department of Education and Training v GA (No 23) [2004] NSWCATAP 50 EJE v Department of Education [2023] NSWCATAD 132 Grain Growers Limited v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) [2016] NSWCA 259 ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2004) 60 NSWLR 18 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR at 12-13. Project Blue Sky Inc v ABA (1998) 194 CLR Singh BHNF Ambu Anwar v Lynch [2020] NSWCA 152 State of New South Wales v Williamson [2011] NSWCA 183 The Owners – Strata Plan 87003 v Raysons Constructions Pty LTD [2025] NSWSC 66 Vella v Mir [2019] NSWCATAP 28 at [48]. Watkins v Tasman Tourism Pty Limited [2024] NSWCATAP 263
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	EHG (Applicant) The Hon Yasmin Catley MP (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: D Birch (Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00104056
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), the disclosure of the name of the Applicant or reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the Applicant or is likely to lead to the identification of the Applicant is prohibited.