Legal Research
Cases
GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District

GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District

Case [2025] NSWCATAD 219 1 September 2025

Health Information

Health Information Privacy Principles

Reviewable Decision

Correct and Preferable Decision

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Privacy

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAD 219
Hearing dates: 8 August 2025
Date of orders: 1 September 2025
Decision date: 01 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: EA MacIntyre, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) That the Respondent render a formal apology in writing to the Applicant for the distress caused to him by its breach of HPP 7.
(2) The decision under review is affirmed and the Tribunal decides to take no action under s 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - privacy - health information - health information privacy principles - HPP 7 - excessive delay - HPP 5 - accuracy - HPP 9 - security - HPP 10 - use - HPP 11 - disclosure
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - reviewable decision - conduct - correct and preferable decision - Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179
Commissioner of Police v Ritson [2023] NSWCA 300
CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300
CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350
EEH v Insurance & Care NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 82
JD v NSW Department of Health [2007] NSWADT 219

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
GSY (Applicant)
Western Sydney Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation:
Self-Represented (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/00420430
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 pursuant to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) (“PPIP Act”) seeking remedies for claimed breaches of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) (“HRIP Act”).
The applicant’s claims arise out of delays in the provision of information to him and the alleged use and disclosure of his personal information. He says that these matters resulted in breaches of certain Health Privacy Principles (“HPPs”) set out in the HRIP Act.

Background

On 18 December 2023, the applicant in this matter GSY (“Applicant”) submitted to the respondent, Western Sydney Local Health District (“Respondent”) an application for access to health information. The request was for “All Health Records, from 1994 until now”.
On that same day, a representative of the Respondent sent an email to the Applicant confirming receipt of the Applicant’s request. She indicated that “due to our Christmas shutdown period we are unable to make appointments to view medical records until 8 January 2024”.
On 23 January 2024, the…

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 GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District

Details

AGLC: GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAD 219
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 219
Decision Date: 01 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GSY brought a complaint against the Western Sydney Local Health District concerning alleged breaches of the health information privacy principles. The dispute was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The Applicant argued that the Respondent had failed to provide timely access to his health information, in breach of HPP 7, and had also provided inaccurate information, contrary to HPP 5. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed that the health information had not been adequately secured, a violation of HPP 10, and that it had been used and disclosed without appropriate authority, in breach of HPP 11. The Respondent denied the allegations and argued that the complaint was invalid.

The Tribunal examined whether the Respondent's conduct constituted a breach of the privacy principles. It determined that there was an unreasonable delay in providing the Applicant with his health information, in breach of HPP 7, and that the information provided was inaccurate, contravening HPP 5. However, the Tribunal found that the security of the health information was adequate and that there was no evidence of unauthorised use or disclosure. The Tribunal concluded that the complaint was valid and that the Respondent's conduct was reviewable under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). The Tribunal found that the decision under review was correct and preferable and that no action should be taken under s 55(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to provide a formal written apology to the Applicant for the distress caused by the breach of HPP 7. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review and decided to take no further action. The Applicant's complaint was partially upheld, and the Respondent was required to address the issues identified by the Tribunal to ensure compliance with the privacy principles in future.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That the Respondent render a formal apology in writing to the Applicant for the distress caused to him by its breach of HPP 7.

(2) The decision under review is affirmed and the Tribunal decides to take no action under s 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).

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

GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAD 219

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

Commissioner of Police v Ritson [2023] NSWCA 300
Citation 1 (Para 33)

…What is “excessive delay” in the context of the PPIP Act fell for consideration in Commissioner of Police v Ritson [2023] NSWCA 300. What the Court of Appeal said about what is “excessive delay” under the PPIP Act is of relevance in the present matter in determining the meaning of the same phrase in the HRIP Act. T…
EEH v Insurance and Care NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 82
Citation 2 (Para 34)

…The Tribunal in EEH v Insurance & Care NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 82 also considered what “excessive delay” means in the context of the PPIP Act and HRIP Act. Higgins SM said, at [101]:…
CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300
Citation 3 (Para 75)

…, in some cases, be awarded for emotional distress, even if there is no medical evidence in support of the applicant’s claim. In CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300, the Tribunal awarded damages of $1,000 as a result of disclosure of personal information. In AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179, th…
CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350
Citation 4 (Para 60)

…tly be satisfied that the relevant conduct of the Respondent caused the damage or loss claimed by the Applicant. In CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350, Hennessy LCM, Deputy President said, at [24]-[25]:…
EQ v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of Information) [2016] AATA 785
Citation 5 (Para 47)

…When interpreting the words “by reason of” in EQ and Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Freedom of information) [2016] AATA 785 at [47] the AAT adopted the following principles relying, to some extent, on the common law principles in March v Stramare (E and MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR…
JD v NSW Department of Health [2007] NSWADT 219
Citation 6 (Para 63)

…consequences of a psychological condition in the context of a compensation claim were set out in the following terms in JD v NSW Department of Health [2007] NSWADT 219, at [57]:…
FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78
Citation 7 (Para 103)

…ey the same meaning as the words “because of” in the NSW statute. Despite my conclusion in FM v Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78 at [103], I agree with the AAT summary of the relevant principles and acknowledge that a ‘but for’ analysis is not a sufficient test for causation.…
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12
Citation 8

…785 at [47] the AAT adopted the following principles relying, to some extent, on the common law principles in March v Stramare (E and MH) Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506: (a) causation is ultimately a question of common sense and experience, determined on the facts of each case; (b) in law, causation i…
Australian Bank Employees Union v National Australia Bank Ltd [1989] FCA 72
Citation 9

…Cth), the AAT, including the President of the Tribunal, Justice Downes, relied on the decision of the Federal Court in Hall v A & A Sheiban Pty Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 217, a decision involving the assessment of damages under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The Federal Court considered that where a complaint is sub…
[2015] NSWCATAP 179 [2015] NSWCATAP 179
Citation 10 (Para 75)

…[2018] NSWCATAD 300, the Tribunal awarded damages of $1,000 as a result of disclosure of personal information. In AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179, the Tribunal found a breach of HPP 4 dealing with the collection of information. It awarded damages of $4,000 for that breach.…

Legislation Cited

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 28)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 18)
Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	GSY v Western Sydney Local Health District [2025] NSWCATAD 219
Hearing dates:	8 August 2025
Date of orders:	1 September 2025
Decision date:	01 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	EA MacIntyre, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) That the Respondent render a formal apology in writing to the Applicant for the distress caused to him by its breach of HPP 7. (2) The decision under review is affirmed and the Tribunal decides to take no action under s 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - privacy - health information - health information privacy principles - HPP 7 - excessive delay - HPP 5 - accuracy - HPP 9 - security - HPP 10 - use - HPP 11 - disclosure ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - reviewable decision - conduct - correct and preferable decision - Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 Commissioner of Police v Ritson [2023] NSWCA 300 CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300 CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350 EEH v Insurance & Care NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 82 JD v NSW Department of Health [2007] NSWADT 219
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GSY (Applicant) Western Sydney Local Health District (Respondent)
Representation:	Self-Represented (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/00420430
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.