Purrer v Information Commissioner

In the matter of Purrer v Information Commissioner, the applicant, a parent of a child attending a secondary school under the control of the Department of Education and Training, made a privacy complaint regarding the recording of a confidential contact with a law enforcement officer in the school's OneSchool database. The Information Commissioner declined to accept the applicant’s privacy complaint, leading the applicant to seek judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Information Commissioner erred in law by refusing to accept the applicant's privacy complaint.

The court considered the scope and nature of the applicant's complaint, which involved multiple facets and multiple entities, including the Department, the school, and the Queensland Police Service. The court found that the complaint was not solely about the applicant's personal information but also involved the personal information of the applicant’s wife and son. Moreover, the complaint encompassed dissatisfaction with various services and conduct, which were not strictly privacy issues but rather administrative or operational concerns. The court held that the Information Privacy Act 2009 was not the appropriate mechanism to address these broader administrative and operational complaints. The Information Commissioner’s decision to decline the complaint was within the broad discretion provided by section 168(1)(c) of the Act, which allows for the refusal of complaints deemed frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. The court concluded that the Information Commissioner reasonably believed the complaint to be lacking in substance and did not find an error of law in the Commissioner's decision.

The court ordered that the parties be heard regarding the form of orders and costs.