Norkin v University of New England

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application for leave to appeal by Mr Norkin against the University of New England. Mr Norkin, an overseas student, had applied for postgraduate study with the University, which participated in the Simplified Student Visa Framework. The dispute concerned whether the University, in collecting Mr Norkin's personal information, had done so on behalf of the Commonwealth and for the purpose of forming a view on the likelihood of him being granted a student visa, thereby potentially engaging privacy obligations under the *Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998* (NSW).

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the University collected Mr Norkin's personal information on behalf of the Commonwealth and whether it did so in order to form a view on the likelihood of him being granted a student visa. Further, the Court had to determine whether there was a direct relationship between the lawful purpose of collecting the personal information and one of the University's functions or activities, and whether "lawful purpose" required express authorisation or merely meant something not prohibited. The Court also considered whether a misapprehension of facts, which had influenced earlier decisions in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court, warranted the grant of leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998* (NSW) and the factual matrix of the case. The Court found that the University's collection of personal information was for its own purposes in assessing the application for postgraduate study, and not on behalf of the Commonwealth or for the specific purpose of assessing visa eligibility. The Court also determined that the earlier misapprehension of facts, while noted, did not provide a sufficient basis for granting leave to appeal in the circumstances.

The Court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. It further provided a mechanism for the parties to apply for costs orders within 14 days, requiring short written submissions from each party.