JT v Technical and Further Education Commission [2011] NSWADT 63

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: JT v Technical and Further Education Commission [2011] NSWADT 63 Hearing dates: 23 March 2011 Decision date: 23 March 2011 Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: The Summons issued on 16 February 2011 is set aside. Catchwords: Summons to produce documents - legitimate forensic purpose Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: QQ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 54 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: JT (Applicant) Technical and Further Education Commission (Respondent) Representation: Counsel P Ginters (Respondent) JT (Applicant in person) File Number(s): 083301 Publication restriction: Section 75(2)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 applies in relation to the identity of the applicant.

reasons for decision 1In these reasons the names of several private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as JT. I have also limited my discussion of the evidence in order to avoid the possibility that the identities of individuals might be revealed. 2The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the respondent concerning alleged breaches of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("PPIP Act") and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 ("HRIP Act"). The Applicant 's allegations concern conduct of a number of officers employed by the respondent. 3In February 2011 JT requested that the Registrar issue a summons requiring that the Respondent produce the following to the Tribunal: 1. A Copy (including those in electronic and printed form) of all correspondence (including Telstra and mobile statement), notes, records of meetings and records of telephone discussions between [Ms S] and the counsellor's office at [the] TAFE regarding [JT] that have been kept by the respondent for the period between 2 February 2005 and 17 February 2005; 2. A Copy (including those in electronic and printed form) of all correspondence (including Telstra and mobile statement), notes, records of meetings and records of telephone discussions between [Ms G] and [Mr C] regarding [JT] that have been kept by the respondent for the period between 2 February 2005 and 17 February 2005; 3. A Copy (including those in electronic and printed form) of all correspondence (including Telstra and mobile statement), notes, records of meetings and records of telephone discussions between [Ms G] and [Ms S] regarding [JT] that have been kept by the respondent between 2 February 2005 and 17 February 2005; 4. A copy of all counselling records for [JT] including but not limited to notes, minutes from weekly meetings, records of any meetings between any counsellors and [Mr C] and/or [Ms G] for the period between 2 February 2005 and 30 June 2005. 5. A copy of all counselling records for [JT] including but not limited to notes, minutes from weekly meetings, records of any meetings between any counsellors and [Ms G] and/or [Ms S] for the period between 1 February 2004 and 30 June 2005. 6. A copy of all meeting records for [JT] including but not limited to notes, minutes from the meetings, records of any meetings between "Susan" (on email 4 February 2005) and [Ms B] for the period between 3 February 2005 and 30 June 2005. 4The Respondent has brought an application for an order that the summons be set aside. It says that the documents sought are irrelevant to matters in issue in the proceedings and do not serve a legitimate forensic purpose. It says that the summons amount to no more than a fishing expedition in that it does not seek documents to prove the Applicant's case as pressed but, rather, the Applicant seeks to trawl through the Respondent's documents to see if he has a case at all.