Tareq Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal

[2012] HCASL 126

TAREQ ALTARANESI

v

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 126
S82/2012

1. The applicant was employed by the second respondent (formerly known as the Sydney South West Area Health Service) as a hospital assistant.  Before his employment was terminated on 19 January 2009, the applicant made two applications to the second respondent seeking internal review of certain conduct.  First, in September 2008 the applicant applied for review of conduct alleged to involve the wrongful disclosure of personal and health information concerning himself, his wife and his daughter.  In December 2008, the applicant was notified by letter that the review found no breach of the "Health Privacy Principles" in the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), particularly Health Privacy Principle 11. Secondly, in March 2009 the applicant applied for review of conduct consisting of delay in responding to requests by him for access to his personnel file and certain other documents. In April 2009, the applicant was notified by letter that the review found that there had been no excessive delay in providing him with access to the relevant information.

2. On 12 February 2010 and 15 April 2010, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales ("the Tribunal") dismissed the applicant's applications for review of the conduct the subject of the September 2008 complaint and the April 2009 complaint, respectively.  As to the September 2008 complaint, the Tribunal held that there had been no breach of any Health Privacy Principle or of any relevant "information protection principle" contained in the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW). As to the March 2009 complaint, the Tribunal held that there was no excessive delay in providing the applicant with the relevant information. On 27 April 2010, in respect of the proceeding the subject of the September 2008 complaint, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant pay one-half of the second respondent's costs incurred up to and including 12 August 2009 and all of the second respondent's costs incurred after that date.

3. On 2 September 2010, the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal ("the Panel") dismissed the applicant's appeals against the Tribunal's decisions.  In respect of the September 2008 complaint, the Panel declined to grant the applicant leave to extend the appeal to a review of the merits and held that there was no error identified in the Tribunal's decision.  In respect of the March 2009 complaint, the Panel held that there was nothing exceptional about the Tribunal's evaluation that the delay was not excessive.  In respect of the costs order made on 27 April 2010, the Panel held that the Tribunal's approach to the costs application was procedurally fair and that the decision did not involve any manifest injustice.

4. On 28 February 2012, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the applicant's appeal from the Panel's decision.  With respect to the September 2008 complaint, Meagher JA (with whom Campbell JA and Handley AJA agreed) held that the applicant had not identified any error of the Panel in respect of a question of law which was material to its decisions not to extend the appeal to the merits and to dismiss the appeal.  His Honour further held that the applicant had not identified any material errors of the Panel with respect to its decisions to dismiss the appeals relating to the March 2009 complaint and the costs order.

5. None of the matters raised by the applicant in his materials filed in this Court cast doubt on the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.  No question of law warranting a grant of special leave to appeal is articulated.  Special leave to appeal is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. 

W.M.C. Gummow
15 August 2012 S.M. Kiefel