Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police -v- EG; EG -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 10

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police -v- EG; EG -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2004] NSWADTAP 10

The Tribunal had potential jurisdiction to review the agency's conduct in sending the whole letter, but it denied procedural fairness by deciding the paragraph 1 issue without adequate notice to the agency that the review had been extended. The paragraph 2 information was, in substance, the same information as appeared in the Daily Telegraph, a publicly available publication, and therefore was excluded from 'personal information' by s 4(3)(b) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; the Tribunal made no error of law on that issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeals to Appeal Panel From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Decision on a Preliminary Matter / On the Papers
Outcome
The agency's appeal was allowed and EG's appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'personal Information' 'publicly Available Publication' 'privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998' 'scope of Tribunal Review']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'personal Information' 'publicly Available Publication' 'privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998' 'scope of Tribunal Review']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeals to Appeal Panel From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Decision on a Preliminary Matter / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred by determining that the first paragraph of the agency's letter contained personal information when the agency had not been given adequate notice that the application extended to that paragraph." 'Whether the statement that EG was a police officer currently under suspension was excluded from personal information because it was information contained in a publicly available publication within s 4(3)(b) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.' 'Whether s 4(3)(b) should be confined to information both contained in and sourced from a publicly available publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had potential jurisdiction to review the agency's conduct in sending the whole letter, but it denied procedural fairness by deciding the paragraph 1 issue without adequate notice to the agency that the review had been extended. The paragraph 2 information was, in substance, the same information as appeared in the Daily Telegraph, a publicly available publication, and therefore was excluded from 'personal information' by s 4(3)(b) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; the Tribunal made no error of law on that issue.

Court Disposition

The agency's appeal was allowed and EG's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal by the agency is allowed.' 'The appeal by EG is dismissed.' 'Order no. 1 of the Tribunal, dated 24 June 2003, is set aside. The question dealt with in that Order is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.' 'Order nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Tribunal, dated 24 June 2003, are confirmed.']