Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: KP v Narrandera Shire Council (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 15 Hearing dates: 9 December 2010 Decision date: 01 April 2011 Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President
S Montgomery, Judicial Member
E Hayes, Non-Judicial MemberDecision: 1. The Tribunal's decisions to take no action is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence.
Catchwords: APPEAL - Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act - scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction - whether Tribunal bound to make a finding as to whether there has been a contravention of the Information Protection Principles before deciding to take no further action Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Powers of Attorney Act 2003Cases Cited: KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 56
AW v Vice Chancellor, University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 86
NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 61
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
NS v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2004] NSWADT 263Texts Cited: Williams CR, Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation (2003) Sydney Law Review 9 Category: Principal judgment Parties: KP (Appellant)
Narrandera Shire Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
MA Robinson (Respondent)
KP (Appellant - in person)
Henningham Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 109022 Decision under appeal
- Before:
- General Division
- File Number(s):
- 093011
reasons for decision
Background
KP has appealed against a decision of the Tribunal under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) that no action be taken in relation to his application . KP is entitled to appeal on a question of law but must obtain the Appeal Panel's leave before appealing against the merits of the Tribunal's decisions: ADT Act, s 113.
KP is a resident of the local government area under the control of Narrandera Shire Council. In 2006 he complained to the NSW Ombudsman about the way certain Council employees had treated him. These proceedings concern a letter written by the then General Manager of the Council to the NSW Ombudsman's Office on 5 December 2006 responding to those complaints. The letter stated that KP had been prohibited from accessing Council's offices. The reasons for that decision were said to be the 'vexatious complaints' made by KP and, more recently, his 'unstable' behaviour. That behaviour was alleged to have included:
(a) verbal outbursts with staff;
(b) photographing a Councillor's residence;
(c) causing problems at the airport including unauthorised access to the airside section of the airport and attempting to seek information on aviation fuel; and
(d) attempting self harm.
On 13 December 2008, KP applied for an internal review of Council's conduct pursuant to the PPIP Act . When asked to identify the specific conduct he was complaining about, KP wrote:
The collection of personal information for unlawful means (PPIP Act 1998 -…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read KP v Narrandera 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWADTAP 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal was required to make a finding as to whether there had been a contravention of the Information Protection Principles before deciding to take no further action. The appellant argued that the Tribunal was obliged to make such a finding, while the respondent contended that the Tribunal had the discretion to take no further action if it considered that it was not in the public interest to do so. The court needed to determine the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the Tribunal had exercised its discretion correctly.
The court held that the Tribunal was indeed required to make a finding as to whether there had been a contravention of the Information Protection Principles before deciding to take no further action. The court found that the Tribunal had not made such a finding, and therefore had not exercised its discretion correctly. The court set aside the Tribunal's decisions to take no action and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence.
The Supreme Court's decision clarified the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and emphasised the importance of making findings of fact before exercising discretion. The final orders of the court were to set aside the Tribunal's decisions to take no action and to remit the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal's decisions to take no action is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal to be heard and decided again with the hearing of further evidence.
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.