AJE v Hawkesbury City Council [2013] NSWADT 174

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AJE v Hawkesbury City Council [2013] NSWADT 174 Hearing dates: 24 October 2012, 7 December 2012 Decision date: 02 August 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: S Montgomery, Judicial Member Decision: The Tribunal determines not to take any action on the matter. Catchwords: Privacy - personal information - information protection principle - insufficient evidence Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: Birdon Contracting Pty Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2009] NSWLEC 85 Birdon Contracting Pty Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2009] NSWLEC 1395 Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44. Diamond v Birdon Contracting Pty Limited & anor [2008] NSWLEC 302 GR v Director-General, Department of Housing (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 26 JD v Department of Heath (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 44 Rajski v Scitec Corporation Pty Ltd (unreported, NSWCA, 16 June 1986). Category: Principal judgment Parties: AJE (Applicant) Hawkesbury City Council (Respondent) Representation: Counsel S Nash (Respondent) AJE (Applicant in person) Marsdens Law Group (Respondent) J McAteer, Deputy Privacy Commissioner File Number(s): 123080

reasons for decision 1GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. In these reasons the Applicant is referred to as AJE. The names of public servants involved in the performance of official functions are not anonymised. 2This is an application made by the Applicant, AJE, under section 55(1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("the PPIP Act"), seeking external review of conduct of staff of the Respondent, Hawkesbury City Council ("the Council" or "the Respondent"). In August 2011 AJE made an application for internal review of that conduct under the PPIP Act. The Council conducted an internal review in relation to the conduct under section 53 of the PPIP Act. Its determination, dated 1 March 2012, was to take no further action on the matter. The Council's review found that AJE had not provided sufficient evidence to support his allegation that the Council had breached his privacy. 3AJE was not satisfied with the findings of that review and he applied to the Tribunal for external review of the alleged conduct. 4The Tribunal's task is to review the conduct that was the subject of the internal review request: JD v Department of Heath (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 44). The review is confined in its scope by the initial request for internal review, reasonably construed: Department of Education and Training v ZR (No 2) (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 44. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review conduct that was not the subject of the internal review application.