APV and APW and Department of Family and Community Services [2014] NSWCATAD 9

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: APV and APW and Department of Family and Community Services [2014] NSWCATAD 9 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 10 February 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Mrs N Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The Respondent's application to dismiss the Applicants' application for review is dismissed. Orders: 1. The parties are to file an agreed timetable for the filing and serving of further evidence and submissions in the substantive matter, or consent to mediation, or both, within 14 days. 2. Liberty to restore. Catchwords: Jurisdiction - privacy - internal review - correct agency Legislation Cited: Housing Act 2001 Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 Cases Cited: GA v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 38 VZ v University of Newcastle [2008] NSWADT 178 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: APV (First Applicant) APW (Second Applicant) Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent) Representation: In person (First and Second Applicants) K Sato, Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 133076

reasons for decision

Background 1On 7 October 2009, APV and APW, the Applicants, acquired the leasehold of a property in The Rocks from the NSW Land and Housing Corporation ("LHC"). 2The Applicants complain under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("PPIP Act") that the Respondent, the Department of Family and Community Services ("FACS") breached their privacy. The Applicants' complaint arose from their solicitor's dealings with the solicitor who acted for LHC in the transaction, Mr Hale. Mr Hale was an employee of Housing NSW, which is now a part of FACS. 3The Respondent denied that it engaged in conduct in breach of the PPIP Act. The complaint was the subject of an internal review dated 17 December 2012. That application named FACS as the agency the subject of the complaint. 4Dissatisfied with the internal review, the Applicants seek review by the Tribunal under s.55 of the PPIP Act. 5The Respondent now claims that the application for review is misconceived as it names the incorrect Respondent and that the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction. The Respondent submitted that the purported "internal review" conducted by FACS was not an internal review for the purposes of s.53(1), because it was the wrong agency to conduct the review. 6The Respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the Applicants' application for review. This decision therefore relates to the question of the correct Respondent and the Tribunal's jurisdiction.