CJN v University of Sydney [2016] NSWCATAD 173

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CJN v University of Sydney [2016] NSWCATAD 173 Hearing dates: 15 June 2016 Date of orders: 15 June 2016 Decision date: 15 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: (1) Professor Christopher Jordens is removed as a party to this matter.

(2) The Application is dismissed. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Privacy – personal information - public sector agency – whether Internal review request – jurisdiction. Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Cases Cited: PC v University of New South Wales (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 72 PC v University of New South Wales [2005] NSWADT 157 Pearce v AQO [2015] NSWCATAP 162 Y v Director-General, Department of Education [2001] NSWADT 149 Category: Principal judgment Parties: CJN (Applicant) University of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Pearson (Applicant) B Tronson (Respondent)

Solicitors: University of Sydney Office of General Counsel (Respondent) File Number(s): 1610025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as CJN. At relevant times CJN was a student at University of Sydney ("the University" or "the Respondent"). 2. CJN alleged that the Respondent's conduct contravened several of the Information Protection Principles ("IPPs") of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 ("the PPIP Act"). 3. The University submitted that this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as there was no valid application for internal review as required by the PPIP Act. 4. The matter came before me for hearing on 15 June 2016. On that occasion I agreed with the University's argument and I dismissed the matter for want of jurisdiction. The issue was also raised about whether Professor Christopher Jordens had been correctly named as a respondent to the matter. CJN has requested written reasons for that decision. These reasons are provided in response to that request.