WL v Randwick City Council (No 2)

CITATION:	WL v Randwick City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 84
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT WL RESPONDENT Randwick City Council
FILE NUMBER:	073294
HEARING DATES:	1 May 2009
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	2 November 2009
DATE OF DECISION:	6 April 2010
BEFORE:	Higgins S - Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Privacy – information protection principle – contravention of collection and disclosure principles – direction of Privacy Commissioner exempting agency from complying with the principles
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Evidence Act 1995 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) Local Government Act 1973 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	WL v La Trobe University (General) [2005] VCAT 2592 WL v Randwick City Council (No 2)(GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 52 WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADTAP 58 WL v Randwick City Council [2007] NSWADT 12
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT A J Seton, solicitor
ORDERS:	Pursuant to subsection 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 the Tribunal determines to take no action on this matter.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1 The applicant, WL, has sought review of conduct of an officer of the respondent, Randwick City Council (‘the Council’), that he asserts contravened a number of the information protection principles, which apply to the Council under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (‘PPIP Act’). WL has at all times represented himself in these proceedings. He has also been assisted by his wife.

2 These have been very protracted proceedings, primarily because of the circumstances in which the conduct the subject of these proceedings arose and the events that occurred thereafter. These circumstances and events, WL and his wife contend has caused them considerable anguish. However, as I have explained throughout these proceedings, the role of the Tribunal is limited to reviewing the specific conduct of the Council, through one of its officers, that WL alleged to be a contravention of the PPIP Act: see sub-section 55(1) of the PPIP Act and section 38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (‘the ADT Act’). The conduct in issue is that of Mr Kerr, who was employed as a compliance officer with the Council at that time. In an email, sent to the Mayor of the Council on 24 August 2005, WL described the conduct of Mr Kerr which he alleged to be in contravention of the PPIP Act as follows:

‘[Mr Kerr] …[chose] to intrude the private property unannounced, without written notice of the intention to enter the premises, without a letter of authority, without asking permission, he entered the private property and took photographs of it without the owner’s, or occupier’s knowledge or consent, and subsequently disseminated the photographs and other privileged information to other parties, again without the owner’s consent or knowledge. …’

3 This is the conduct that is the subject of this application, however it is necessary to also provide a brief description of the circumstances in which it arose.

Background

4 On 6 June 2005, the…