Icon Retail Investments Limited (ABN 23 074 371 207) and AGL Act Retail Investments Pty Ltd (ABN 53 093 631 586) v Eighani (Appeal)

Icon Retail Investments Limited and AGL Act Retail Investments Pty Ltd brought an appeal against a decision of the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The original decision found that an email sent to the respondent, Ms Eighani, by a debt collection agency engaged by the appellants did not comply with certain requirements under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). As a result, the ACAT ordered that a default be removed from the respondent’s credit file. The appellants argued that the ACAT erred in law by concluding that the email did not comply with the Privacy Act and that there was no proper basis to conclude that the notice was invalid.

The legal issues before the court were whether the August email complied with the Privacy Act and, if it did not, whether the ACAT had the power to order the removal of the default from the respondent’s credit file. The court had to consider the requirements of the Privacy Act, particularly in relation to the notice to be given to an individual before their credit information is reported to a credit reporting body. The court also had to consider the scope of the ACAT's powers under the Credit Reporting (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 (ACT).

The court found that the August email did not comply with the Privacy Act as it did not include the prescribed information required to be given to an individual before their credit information is reported to a credit reporting body. The court held that the ACAT had the power to order the removal of the default from the respondent’s credit file. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original decision of the ACAT.

The court held that the August email did not include all the prescribed information required by the Privacy Act. The court noted that the email did not include the names of the credit reporting bodies to which the debt was reported, the date on which the information was reported, or a statement that the information may be used for the purpose of assessing the credit worthiness of the individual. The court held that the ACAT was correct to find that the August email did not comply with the Privacy Act. The court also held that the ACAT had the power to order the removal of the default from the respondent’s credit file as it was a remedy available under the Credit Reporting (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004 (ACT). The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original decision of the ACAT. The court made an order that Order 1 of the Orders of 4 June 2020 in matter EW 0448/2019 be amended to include the words “do all things necessary to” after the word “respondent”.