PN v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2010] NSWADTAP 59
PARTIES:
APPELLANT PN
RESPONDENT Department of Education and Training
FILE NUMBER:
099082
HEARING DATES:
13 April 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:
13 April 2010
DATE OF DECISION:
31 August 2010
BEFORE:
O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Fitzgerald K - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:
PRIVACY – Employee of public sector agency – Communications about employee to insurer and rehabilitation provider – Whether Information Protection Principles contravened – Tribunal findings of no contravention – Appeal – Collection – Use – Disclosure – Section 25 – Compliance excused if reasonably contemplated by other law – Interpretation – Appeal dismissed – Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, ss 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 25
1 In February 2003 PN was a mathematics teacher at a high school run by the Department of Education and Training. She took sick leave, claiming that she was suffering from stress and depression said to have arisen from bullying in the workplace. She lodged a workers compensation claim. She returned to work in October 2003 under a return to work rehabilitation program.
2 She has contended that seven items of conduct on the part of the Department infringed the protections given by the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act), three occurring in the claims assessment phase, and four during the return to work phase.
3 The PPIP Act binds public sector agencies such as the Department to a series of Information Protection Principles (IPPs) that relate to each stage of the personal information handling cycle. They are set out at ss 8-19. There are numerous exceptions and modifications to the IPPs, some found in the text of the IPPs themselves, others in separate provisions of the Act and some by way of Departmental Codes of Practice approved by the Privacy Commissioner under s 41 of the Act.
5 An appeal may be made in relation to any question of law (Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), s 113(2)(a)), and may, with the leave of the Appeal Panel, be extended to the…
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.
Continue reading PN v Department of Education and Training
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
PN v Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 59
Case
[2010] NSWADTAP 59
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, PN, brought an appeal against a decision of the Information Privacy Commission of Queensland, which had dismissed PN's complaint that the Department of Education and Training had contravened the Information Protection Principles contained in the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The appellant was an employee of the Department, who had been involved in a workplace injury. The Department had communicated information about the appellant to the insurer and rehabilitation provider. The appellant argued that the Department's actions contravened the Information Protection Principles, which prohibit the collection, use or disclosure of personal information in certain circumstances.
The legal issues in the appeal were whether the Department's communications about the appellant to the insurer and rehabilitation provider contravened the Information Protection Principles, and whether the Department was excused from complying with the Principles under section 25 of the Act. The court had to consider the meaning of the terms "collection", "use" and "disclosure" in the context of the Information Protection Principles, and whether the Department's actions were reasonably contemplated by other law. The court also had to consider the purpose for which the personal information was collected, and whether the collection, use or disclosure of the information was for that purpose or a directly related purpose.
The court held that the Department's communications about the appellant to the insurer and rehabilitation provider did not contravene the Information Protection Principles. The court found that the Department's actions were reasonably contemplated by other law, specifically the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The court held that the Department's actions were for the purpose of assessing and managing the appellant's injury, which was a directly related purpose to the collection of the personal information. The court also held that the Department had complied with section 25 of the Act, which excuses compliance with the Information Protection Principles if it is reasonably contemplated by other law. The appeal was dismissed.