DQF v NSW Department of Communities & Justice [2021] NSWCATAD 94

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: DQF v NSW Department of Communities & Justice [2021] NSWCATAD 94 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 16 April 2021 Decision date: 16 April 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Easton, Senior Member Decision: The application for an external review is dismissed. Catchwords: JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: BCR v Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal [2014] NSWCATAD 79 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: DQF(Applicant) NSW Department of Communities & Justice (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self-Represented) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00368527

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 8 July 2019 DQF wrote a letter to his landlord giving notice of his intention to continue his tenancy and advising his landlord how to contact him. DQF was on bail at the time and his passport and mobile phone had been seized by police. Three days later DQF landlord lodged a tenancy application at the registry of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) seeking an order to declare DQF residential premises abandoned. The landlord's application to NCAT included DQF email address. 2. On 10 July 2019 an NCAT registry officer sent an email to DQF with two attachments, being a 'Notice of Conciliation and Hearing' and DQF landlord's tenancy application. 3. DQF is aggrieved by the fact that an NCAT registry officer used DQF email address for the purpose of effecting service without his consent. 4. On 30 September 2019 DQF applied for an internal review of the NCAT Officer's conduct, purportedly pursuant to s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PIPP Act). 5. On 2 November 2019 DQF received a response to his application by letter. The response indicated that DQF application for internal review could not be accepted as valid because there was no "jurisdiction to conduct an internal review under s 53." The respondent referred to and relied upon s 6 of the PIPP Act which is in the following terms: 6 Courts, tribunals and Royal Commissions not affected (1) Nothing in this Act affects the manner in which a court or tribunal, or the manner in which the holder of an office relating to a court or tribunal, exercises the court's, or the tribunal's, judicial functions. (2) Nothing in this Act affects the manner in which a Royal Commission, or any Special Commission of Inquiry, exercises the Commission's functions. (3) In this section, judicial functions of a court or tribunal means such of the functions of the court or tribunal as relate to the hearing or determination of proceedings before it, and includes— (a) in relation to a Magistrate—such of the functions of the Magistrate as relate to the conduct of committal proceedings, and (b) in relation to a coroner—such of the functions of the coroner as relate to the conduct of inquests and inquiries under the Coroners Act 2009. 1. On 22 November 2019 DQF made an application for an external review pursuant to s 55 of the PIPP Act. 2. The parties have each filed a written submission with annexures. The parties were content for the matter to proceed on the papers and I am separately satisfied for the purposes of s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) that the issues in contest can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.