Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Waters v Transport for NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 40 Hearing dates: 20 October 2016, 19 May 2017, 18 August 2017.Last submissions 23 October 2017. Date of orders: 15 February 2018 Decision date: 15 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: 1) The decision of the respondent is set aside.
2) Pursuant to section 55 (2) (b) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the respondent is to refrain from the conduct in breach of Information Protection Principle 1 concerning any collection of personal information relating to travel movement history of the applicant in contravention of section 8 (1) (b) of the Act.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE Law - PRIVACY – Personal Information – Whether reasonably necessary to collect information for allied purpose – Right to anonymous travel - Travel History -– Purpose of collection unrelated to collection – Purpose of collection unrelated to use – General right to privacy. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Health Record Information Privacy Act 2002
Passenger Transport Regulation 2007 (Repealed)
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
State Records Act 1998Cases Cited: AFW v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2013] NSWADT 133
AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 23
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138
APV and APW v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 140
Barton v Armstrong [1973] 2 NSWLR 598
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40
CRP v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 164
DAB v Byron Shire Council [2017] NSWCATAD 104
Durant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746
Edem v The Information Commissioner, The Financial Services Authority [2014] EWCA Civ 92.
EG v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT 150
FM decisions - Vice-Chancellor, Macquarie University v FM (No.2) (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 37
GA v Department of Education and Training & NSW Police (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 10
JD v New South Wales Medical Board [2008] NSWADT 67
Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission [2004] HCA 41
NR and NP v Roads and Traffic Authority [2004] NSWADT 276
Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Limited [2017] FCAFC 4
SW v Forests NSW [2006] NSWADT 74
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396.
TV Shopping Network v Scutt (1998) 43 IPR 451
WL v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 84
Y v Director General, Department of Education & Training [2001] NSWADT 149Texts Cited: Guide: What is Personal Information OAIC May 2017
Fact Sheet: Reasonably Ascertainable identity January 2017 FS 2017/001 Office of NSW Privacy Commissioner IPC
Privacy NSW Guide to IPP’s 1999Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nigel Waters (Applicant)
Transport for NSW (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
N Waters, Applicant (Self Represented)
NSW Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
Privacy Commissioner (Interested Party)
File Number(s): 2016/00378056, 1610285 Publication restriction: Pursuant to…
Continue reading Waters v Transport for NSW
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Waters v Transport for NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 40
- Case
- [2018] NSWCATAD 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the plaintiff, Waters, brought proceedings against the defendant, Transport for NSW, regarding the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff contested the legality of the defendant's collection of his personal travel data, asserting that it was not reasonably necessary for the allied purpose and violated his right to anonymous travel.
The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information was reasonably necessary for an allied purpose and whether such a collection was in breach of the plaintiff's right to privacy. The court was required to determine whether the purpose for which the information was collected was related to the purpose for which it was used, and if the collection of the information was reasonably necessary for the allied purpose.
The court found that the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information was not reasonably necessary for an allied purpose and that the purpose for which the information was collected was unrelated to the purpose for which it was used. Consequently, the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information constituted a breach of the plaintiff's right to privacy. The court ruled that the decision of the respondent was set aside, and the respondent was to refrain from engaging in any conduct that would breach Information Protection Principle 1 concerning the collection of personal information relating to the plaintiff's travel history.
The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information was reasonably necessary for an allied purpose and whether such a collection was in breach of the plaintiff's right to privacy. The court was required to determine whether the purpose for which the information was collected was related to the purpose for which it was used, and if the collection of the information was reasonably necessary for the allied purpose.
The court found that the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information was not reasonably necessary for an allied purpose and that the purpose for which the information was collected was unrelated to the purpose for which it was used. Consequently, the collection of the plaintiff's travel history information constituted a breach of the plaintiff's right to privacy. The court ruled that the decision of the respondent was set aside, and the respondent was to refrain from engaging in any conduct that would breach Information Protection Principle 1 concerning the collection of personal information relating to the plaintiff's travel history.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) The decision of the respondent is set aside.
2) Pursuant to section 55 (2) (b) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the respondent is to refrain from the conduct in breach of Information Protection Principle 1 concerning any collection of personal information relating to travel movement history of the applicant in contravention of section 8 (1) (b) of the Act.
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.