AF v Healthquest [2009] NSWADT 28

AF v Healthquest [2009] NSWADT 28

Most of the requested summonses should be permitted because the identified witnesses and documents had possible relevance to the applicant's substantive privacy claims and the proposed summonses did not appear, at this stage, to be unduly onerous; however, no summons was needed for witnesses the respondent agreed to produce, and the New South Wales Health summons was limited to records evidencing establishment of the HealthQuest Board because accreditation was not in factual dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Review Alleged Conduct in Breach of Privacy Legislation / Interlocutory Determination Concerning Summonses to Produce Documents and Summonses for Witnesses to Attend
Outcome
Summonses permitted to issue in part and referred to the Registrar for final determination under the Act.
Legal Topics
['summonses to Produce Documents' 'witness Summonses' 'personal Information' 'health Information' 'relevance of Documents and Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'privacy' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['summonses to Produce Documents' 'witness Summonses' 'personal Information' 'health Information' 'relevance of Documents and Evidence']

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

Application to Review Alleged Conduct in Breach of Privacy Legislation / Interlocutory Determination Concerning Summonses to Produce Documents and Summonses for Witnesses to Attend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether summonses should issue for named persons to attend the substantive hearing to give evidence.' 'Whether summonses should issue to Telstra Corporation Ltd, New South Wales Health and the Roads and Traffic Authority to produce documents.' "Whether the documents and evidence sought had potential relevance to the applicant's privacy claims and whether the summonses were appropriately limited."]

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the requested summonses should be permitted because the identified witnesses and documents had possible relevance to the applicant's substantive privacy claims and the proposed summonses did not appear, at this stage, to be unduly onerous; however, no summons was needed for witnesses the respondent agreed to produce, and the New South Wales Health summons was limited to records evidencing establishment of the HealthQuest Board because accreditation was not in factual dispute.

Court Disposition

Summonses permitted to issue in part and referred to the Registrar for final determination under the Act.

Orders

  • ['Summonses may be issued at the request of the applicant to Steve Davison, Richard Boggon, Emilia Cvetkovic and Rae Giffin to attend at the substantive hearing for the purpose of giving evidence.' 'A summons may issue at the request of the applicant to Telstra Corporation Ltd to produce records as to the three...