AIN v Medical Council of NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 8

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AIN v Medical Council of NSW [2016] NSWCATAD 8 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: The Respondent breached s.14 PIPP Act in that it held the Applicant's personal information access to which was not provided to the Applicant without excessive delay. ORDERS The Applicant file and serve submissions as to remedy, not exceeding 2000 words, within 14 days. The Respondent file and serve submissions as to remedy, not exceeding 2000 words, within 14 days after receipt of the Applicant's submissions as to remedy. The matter is to be relisted for directions as to remedy on 18 April 2016 at 9.30am. Catchwords: Privacy – request for information – delay – scope of request - versions of document Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Cases Cited: KO and KP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2005] NSWADTAP 56 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): 1410023

Judgment

Introduction 1. On 15 January 2014, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Respondent's deemed refusal to deal with her internal review application of 20 October 2013 under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ('PPIP Act'). 2. The Applicant's internal review application concerned a request, under s.14 PPIP Act, for access to specific personal information about her which she alleged was held by the Respondent. The requested personal information can be summarised as follows: 1. whether a copy of the "Conditions Letter" was forwarded to the Applicant on any date before 13 October 2011; 2. whether a version of the "Conditions Letter" with a print-out date of 4 November 2008 exists or has ever existed (and, presumably, whether this is held by the Council); 3. any documentation or other information that indicates when and how such a version came into existence, whether it was ever sent to the Applicant and whether it was ever placed on her file; and 4. Whether the "Conditions Letter" (or a version of the "Conditions Letter") was forwarded to any other medical practitioner between 2008 and 2011.