VZ v University of Newcastle [2011] NSWADT 245

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: VZ v University of Newcastle [2011] NSWADT 245 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 28 October 2011 Before: P Molony, Judicial Member Decision: 1.The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine VZ's application that 'the wording on the transcript be deleted.' 2.This matter shall be listed for a directions hearing at 2pm on 6 December 2011 at which the future course of the application will be determined. Catchwords: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 - internal review - scope Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: Department of Education and Training v GA (No.3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44 KO' & 'KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 18 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Applicant - VZ Respondent - University of Newcastle Representation: Surry Hills Legal Service (Applicant) Hicksons Lawyers (Respondent) J McAteer (Privacy Commissioner) File Number(s): 113207

REasons for decision

Introduction 1This is a decision concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine the second limb of VZ's application to the Tribunal to review conduct of the University of Newcastle (the agency) under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIP Act). In his application to the Tribunal which was filed on 28 July 2011 VZ sought the following orders: That subject Abor3080 be placed on [VZ]'s academic transcript. That wording on the transcript be deleted. The wording in issue is agreed to read - External: candidature terminated by research training committee effective 31-3-05. 2In essence the agency argues that the internal review did not consider the deletion VZ seeks in his application to the Tribunal, and that, as a result, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review that conduct. VZ disputes this, saying that he did make such a request. 3At a planning meeting held on 30 August 2011 it was decided that I should determine the jurisdiction issue on the papers. It is an issue that can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. All parties, including the Privacy Commissioner, have made submissions to which I have had regard.