VE v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2011] NSWADT 60

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: VE v Department of Human Services, Community Services [2011] NSWADT 60 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 23 March 2011 Before: N Isenberg, Judicial Member Decision: 1.Respondent to pay the applicant in accordance with the 'consent orders' dated 1 February 2011 2.Respondent is to pay the applicant 's costs of and from 1 November 2010, including the costs associated with the application for costs. Catchwords: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 - costs Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: Law Society of NSW v Dimitriou (No 2) [2010] NSW ADT 37 Kyriacou v. Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2009] NSWADT 175 Alramon Pty Ltd v Jonamill Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 302 Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority of NSW (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 201 Yong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 75 FCR Category: Costs Parties: VE (Applicant) Department of Human Services, Community Services (Respondent) Representation: Artemis Legal (Applicant) Department of Human Services, Community Services (Respondent) File Number(s): 103173

reasons for decision

Background 1VE alleged that Community Services caseworkers released a hospital discharge summary about her son to his carer. That action was said to have disclosed information about VE and her close family members, in breach of several Information Protection Principles of the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ( PPIP Act) . The carer then apparently discussed VE and her family with the media and a newspaper article was published. The article did not mention VE or her son by name but provided some of the personal information from which she claimed she could be identified. 2The caseworkers and the carer were counselled and an apology issued to VE, notwithstanding that Community Services found in its investigation, that 'as no identifying information was included in the [newspaper] article, no breach of [VE's] privacy has resulted from its publication.' 3VE brought proceedings in the Tribunal, alleging that her identity could be, and in fact was, ascertained from the newspaper article and that there had been a breach of her privacy as a result of which she suffered psychological harm.