Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: GGP v Lismore City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 308 Hearing dates: 13 June 2024 Date of orders: 16 October 2024 Decision date: 16 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Decision: (1) The respondent’s decision of 28 March 2024 is varied as follows:
(a) in lieu of the respondent’s delegate noting that the applicant’s name from the publicly available copy of the Annual Environmental Monitoring Report 2022 and the street numbers from the 17 references to her home address would be redacted, the applicant’s name and her entire street address is redacted in their entirety;
(b) in lieu of the respondent’s delegate redacting a paragraph from the 3 August 2022 letter on p 403 of the publicly available copy of the Annual Environmental Monitoring Report, the two references to the applicant’s address are also to be redacted;
(c) in lieu of the apology suggested by the respondent’s delegate, the respondent is to provide a letter to the applicant apologising for:
(i) any distress caused to the applicant by the respondent’s conduct the subject of these reasons; and
(ii) the delay in undertaking and completing the internal review of her privacy complaint.
(d) the respondent is to obtain the applicant’s express consent before publishing her personal information on its website, save for exemptions available to the respondent under any NSW legislation.
(2) The respondent’s decision is otherwise affirmed.
(3) The application for administrative review is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review – Personal Information — Request for deletion of records — Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) ss 10, 15, 16 and 17
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 63
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), ss 4, 10, 12, 24, 25, 53, 55
Cases Cited: ALZ v WorkCover NSW (No 2) [2014] NSWCATAD 122
AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
BSR v Office of the Children’s Guardian [2015] NSWCATAD 264
CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 13
Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
EIG v North Sydney Council [2021] NSCATAD 66
EJX v University of Newcastle [2023] NSWCATAD 53
EMF v Cessnock City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 219
FMH v Cumberland Council [2022] NSWCATAD 293
Freind v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 163
GR v Department of Housing [2003] NSWADT 268
Grande v Lismore City Council [2024] NSWCATAD 33
KT v Sydney Local Health [2011] NSWADT 171
Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107
NX v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWADT 74
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa [1968] HCA
PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read GGP v Lismore City Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWCATAD 308
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues included whether the Council's response to GGP’s privacy complaint was adequate under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and whether the Council properly managed the redaction of GGP’s personal information from public documents. Additionally, the court examined whether the Council's delay in addressing the complaint constituted a breach of privacy rights.
The court held that while the Council’s initial response was appropriate, the internal review did not sufficiently address GGP's concerns about the redaction of her personal information. The court found that the Council should have redacted GGP's full name and address rather than partially redacting them. The court also found that the Council should have apologised for the distress caused by their actions and the delay in the review process. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Council must obtain GGP's consent before publishing her personal information in the future, except where exempt under NSW law.
In summary, the court varied the Council's decision to ensure more comprehensive redactions of GGP's personal information, mandated an apology, and required future consent for publishing personal information. The court affirmed the Council's decision in all other respects and dismissed the application for administrative review.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The respondent’s decision of 28 March 2024 is varied as follows:
(a) in lieu of the respondent’s delegate noting that the applicant’s name from the publicly available copy of the Annual Environmental Monitoring Report 2022 and the street numbers from the 17 references to her home address would be redacted, the applicant’s name and her entire street address is redacted in their entirety;
(b) in lieu of the respondent’s delegate redacting a paragraph from the 3 August 2022 letter on p 403 of the publicly available copy of the Annual Environmental Monitoring Report, the two references to the applicant’s address are also to be redacted;
(c) in lieu of the apology suggested by the respondent’s delegate, the respondent is to provide a letter to the applicant apologising for:
(i) any distress caused to the applicant by the respondent’s conduct the subject of these reasons; and
(ii) the delay in undertaking and completing the internal review of her privacy complaint.
(d) the respondent is to obtain the applicant’s express consent before publishing her personal information on its website, save for exemptions available to the respondent under any NSW legislation.
(2) The respondent’s decision is otherwise affirmed.
(3) The application for administrative review is otherwise dismissed.
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.