GXU v Sutherland Shire Council - [2025] NSWCATAD 227

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: GXU v Sutherland Shire Council [2025] NSWCATAD 227
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
30 June 2025 – final submissions
Date of orders: 09 September 2025
Decision date: 09 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J Smith, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) The publication 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 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).
(2) The Tribunal sets aside the decision made by the Respondent on 25 February 2025 and in substitution of this decision, decides that:
(a) The Respondent breached s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).
(b) The Respondent did not breach ss 8(1), 10, 12(c), 17 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).
(3) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to provide to the Applicant an unreserved written apology addressing and apologising for the Respondent’s breach of s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and for all distress and harm caused to the Applicant as a result.
(4) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant damages in the sum of $2,000.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - privacy – information protection principles - unauthorised disclosure of personal information- damages

Legislation Cited:
Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AOZ Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179
BFR and BFS v Moree Plains Shire Council [2014] NSWCATAD 197
BN v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 165
CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300
Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50
Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 77
DMR v Lane Cove Council [2024] NSWCATAD 193
EPT v The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network [2022] NSWCATAD 137
Eric Anthony Foster v Department of Planning and Environment [2022] NSWCATAD 235
GR v Department of Housing [2003] NSWADT 268
HP v Hunter New England Area Health Services [2009] NSWADT 186
KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 56
Nakhl Nasr v State of New South Wales; George Nasr v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 101
Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 4
WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
GXU (Applicant)
Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:
Applicant (Self-Represented)
Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00110288
Publication restriction: The publication 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 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of…

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 GXU v Sutherland Shire 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

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 227
Decision Date: 09 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In GXU v Sutherland Shire Council, the applicant, GXU, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Sutherland Shire Council, the respondent, regarding the unauthorised disclosure of their personal information. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant alleged that the respondent had breached privacy laws by disclosing their personal information to a third party without their consent, causing distress and harm.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the respondent had breached the privacy and personal information protection principles outlined in the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). Specifically, the applicant argued that the respondent had violated s 18(1) of the Act, which prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of personal information. The tribunal also had to consider whether the respondent had breached other sections of the Act, including ss 8(1), 10, 12(c), and 17.

The tribunal found that the respondent had indeed breached s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) by disclosing the applicant's personal information without their consent. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the disclosure was necessary for the performance of their statutory duties, holding that the respondent had not established a compelling public interest justification for the disclosure. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not breached ss 8(1), 10, 12(c), and 17 of the Act.

In light of the findings, the tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with an unreserved written apology and to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $2,000. The tribunal also set aside the respondent's decision and prohibited the publication of any information that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The publication 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 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

(2) The Tribunal sets aside the decision made by the Respondent on 25 February 2025 and in substitution of this decision, decides that:

(a) The Respondent breached s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).

(b) The Respondent did not breach ss 8(1), 10, 12(c), 17 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).

(3) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to provide to the Applicant an unreserved written apology addressing and apologising for the Respondent’s breach of s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and for all distress and harm caused to the Applicant as a result.

(4) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant damages in the sum of $2,000.

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:	GXU v Sutherland Shire Council [2025] NSWCATAD 227
Hearing dates:	20 June 2025 30 June 2025 – final submissions
Date of orders:	09 September 2025
Decision date:	09 September 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	J Smith, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) The publication 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 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). (2) The Tribunal sets aside the decision made by the Respondent on 25 February 2025 and in substitution of this decision, decides that: (a) The Respondent breached s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). (b) The Respondent did not breach ss 8(1), 10, 12(c), 17 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). (3) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to provide to the Applicant an unreserved written apology addressing and apologising for the Respondent’s breach of s 18(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and for all distress and harm caused to the Applicant as a result. (4) Within 14 days, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant damages in the sum of $2,000.
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – administrative review - privacy – information protection principles - unauthorised disclosure of personal information- damages
Legislation Cited:	Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AOZ Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 BFR and BFS v Moree Plains Shire Council [2014] NSWCATAD 197 BN v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWADT 165 CJU v SafeWork NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 300 Department of Education and Training v GA (No 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 77 DMR v Lane Cove Council [2024] NSWCATAD 193 EPT v The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network [2022] NSWCATAD 137 Eric Anthony Foster v Department of Planning and Environment [2022] NSWCATAD 235 GR v Department of Housing [2003] NSWADT 268 HP v Hunter New England Area Health Services [2009] NSWADT 186 KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 56 Nakhl Nasr v State of New South Wales; George Nasr v State of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 101 Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 4 WT v Auburn Council [2007] NSWADT 253
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GXU (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (Self-Represented) Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00110288
Publication restriction:	The publication 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 pursuant to s 64(1)(a) and (c) of…