Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171 Hearing dates: 20 April 2011 and 10 June 2011 Decision date: 15 July 2011 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: P H Molony, Judicial Member Decision: 1. The Tribunal determines not to take any action with respect to the matter.
2. Any application for costs, with supporting submissions, is be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.
3. A any submissions in reply to be filed and served within a further 14 days.
4. Issue of costs then to be determined on the papers.
Catchwords: Personal Information and Privacy Protection - internal review - information as to suitability for employment as a public sector official - non-compliance reasonably contemplated Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Freedom of Information Act 1989
Government Information (Public Access) (Consequential Amendments and Repeal) Act 2009Cases Cited: British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Department of Education & Training v PN [2009] NSWADTAP 66
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; 205 CLR 337
GL v Department of Education & Training [2003] NSWADT 166
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal [1990] HCA 31; 170 CLR 70
McGovern v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWCA
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; 205 CLR 507;
Murlan Consulting v Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council [2009] NSWCA 300
PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; 161 CLR 342
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 78Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: KT (Applicant)
Sydney Local Health Network (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A Britt (Respondent)
KT (Applicant in person)
B Woolley, Legal Officer (Respondent)
File Number(s): 103229
REasons for decision
Introduction
On 16 July 2010 KT wrote to the Privacy Officer of the Sydney Local Health Network (the agency) seeking a review of conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIPA). The conduct he complained of was that -
Jackie Mills of Human resources, used and disclosed the following to Sicorp and Crown Solicitors:
1. Letter issued by Executive Director to me on 29/3/10 for a barring order.
2. Letter issued by Executive Director to me on 25/11/2008 for a barring order.
3. Letter issued by Executive Director to me on 13/11/2008.
4. Security incident Report issued 16/1/2009.
5. Letter issued by Di Peers on 9/2/2007.
6. The above information contains my personal information as per the definition of personal information.
7. RPAH did not alternate my personal information as per my request. I had previously requested them to altered my address and I found above letter 4.1 was sent to my previous address.
8. RPAH did not check the accuracy of personal information before use. (They used the…
Continue reading KT v Sydney Local Health Network
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- KT v Sydney Local Health Network [2011] NSWADT 171
- Case
- [2011] NSWADT 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that required resolution included the interpretation of the term 'reasonably contemplated' within the context of the Act, and whether the Health Network's actions constituted a breach of privacy. The central question was whether the disclosure of personal information, as part of the suitability assessment, was within the scope of what could be reasonably anticipated under the law. This involved examining the legislative intent, the obligations of the Health Network, and the rights of KT under the privacy protection framework.
The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the statutory provisions relevant to the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Health Network's actions did not breach the privacy provisions as they were within the scope of what could be reasonably contemplated under the Act. The Tribunal found that the disclosure was necessary for the suitability assessment process and that the Health Network had acted in accordance with the legal requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal determined not to take any action with respect to the matter.
In addition to the decision, the Tribunal outlined the process for any subsequent applications for costs, specifying timelines for filing and serving submissions, and the final determination of costs based on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Tribunal determines not to take any action with respect to the matter.
2. Any application for costs, with supporting submissions, is be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.
3. A any submissions in reply to be filed and served within a further 14 days.
4. Issue of costs then to be determined on the papers.
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.