BDK v Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWCATAD 186

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: BDK v Department of Education and Communities [2014] NSWCATAD 186 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 03 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The applicant's application for review is dismissed under s.55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Catchwords: Alleged privacy breaches - numerous complaints - multiple reviews - proceedings frivolous or vexatious Legislation Cited: HYPERLINK "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/papipa1998464/" Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Category: Principal judgment Parties: "BDK": applicant Department of Education and Communities: Respondent Representation: BDK (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 133369

reasons for decision 1The Applicant seeks review of the conduct of the Respondent, a public sector agency, pursuant to s.55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ('PPIP Act'). 2The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has contravened most of the information protection principles ('IPPs'), as set out in the PPIP Act.

BACKGROUND 3This background is largely extracted from the Respondent's submissions and, as far as I could see, there was no substantive dispute about the history set out there. 4The applicant's grandson, L, attended a state school ('the School'). On 9 February 2009, following reports from secretarial staff at the School that the applicant's daughter, Mrs K, had telephoned the School on a number of occasions that morning advising that L was suicidal, and, concerned that L was at risk of harm, the then Principal, ('the Principal'), reported her own concerns to the relevant authorities, as required under child protection law. Police attended Mrs K's home later that day. 5The applicant and Mrs K complained about the conduct of the Principal and the School in relation to those events, in particular, that the Principal had contacted the Department of Community Services and the police. They attended meetings at the School on 10 and 16 February 2009. 6Mrs K also wrote numerous letters to the then School Education Director ('the SE Director'), who arranged for the complaints to be investigated by the relieving School Development Officer ('the SDO'). An investigation was conducted during which Mrs K, the applicant and staff at the School were interviewed. Twenty complaints were addressed by the SE Director in a response sent to Mrs K dated 18 March 2009. 7Mrs K was not satisfied with the response and a review was conducted by the then Regional Director, Illawarra and South East Region, ('the Regional Director'), who had a meeting with Mrs K and the applicant on 3 April 2009. Numerous submissions and correspondence were received from each of them before a determination was made on 30 April 2009 that the SDO's investigation had been thorough.