AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2016] NSWCATAD 7

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AIN v Medical Council of New South Wales [2016] NSWCATAD 7 Hearing dates: 10 and 11 September 2015 Date of orders: 05 January 2016 Decision date: 05 January 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Isenberg - Senior Member Decision: 1. With respect to items 1 and 2, I direct that the Respondent undertake a search of the 'Revisions' folder and provide to the Applicant within 14 days a screen shot of its contents. If there are no contents, then the decision under review is dismissed with respect to items 1 and 2.

2. If the folder is other than empty, the matter is to be re-listed for appropriate orders.

3. With respect to item 14 the application is dismissed. Catchwords: Section 14 – versions – "revisions" - electronically held information Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AIN (Applicant) Medical Council of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: AIN (Applicant in Person) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent File Number(s): 1410022

Judgment

Introduction 1. On 15 January 2014, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal, alleging a breach of s.14 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ('PPIP Act') by the Respondent, the Medical Council of New South Wales.

Background 1. The Applicant is a medical practitioner. Registration as a medical practitioner is determined by the Respondent and, formerly, by its predecessor, the Medical Board of NSW ('the Board'). 2. For reasons associated with her registration status, the Applicant brought proceedings before the Medical Tribunal. The parties settled the proceedings, save as to costs (which were awarded in the Applicant's favour), by agreeing to orders imposing revised conditions on the Applicant's general registration. The Medical Tribunal delivered its decision ex tempore. A written copy of the Medical Tribunal's decision was made available to the Respondent, shortly thereafter; the Applicant only received an earlier draft. The parties were referred to as "Re A practitioner", and (erroneously) the "Office of the Health Care Complaints Commission", although this was subsequently corrected. 3. At the Medical Tribunal hearing the Applicant sought, and, by consent, was granted, a non-publication order ('NPO'). The NPO prohibited the publication or disclosure of the Applicant's name, the name of her son, or any other identifiers of the Applicant or her son. Neither party appears to have sought a formal, sealed, copy of the Orders as entered, but there is no dispute that the NPO was made.