BE v University of Technology, Sydney [2008] NSWADT 139

BE v University of Technology, Sydney [2008] NSWADT 139

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Chancellor's letter contained personal information about BE, and therefore the relevant Information Privacy Principles were not engaged. Even if the letter did contain BE's personal information, UTS's internal circulation and quotation of it were for purposes directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected, namely responding to and managing issues concerning BE's husband's PhD candidature, and therefore fell within section 17(b); any disclosure to BE's husband was also for a directly related purpose and UTS had no reason to believe BE would object, attracting section 18(1)(a). The Tribunal found reasonable steps had been...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Privacy Review Application / Review of Internal Review Decision; Principal Matter
Outcome
The Tribunal determined not to take any action on the matter.
Legal Topics
['information Privacy Principles' 'personal Information' 'use of Personal Information' 'disclosure of Personal Information' 'security of Personal Information' 'health Privacy Principles' 'jurisdiction on Review']
['privacy Law' 'administrative Law'] ['information Privacy Principles' 'personal Information' 'use of Personal Information' 'disclosure of Personal Information' 'security of Personal Information' 'health Privacy Principles' 'jurisdiction on 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

Privacy Review Application / Review of Internal Review Decision; Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Chancellor's letter dated 30 March 2004 contained personal information about BE for the purposes of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998." "Whether UTS breached sections 17 or 18 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 by circulating or quoting the Chancellor's letter in connection with BE's husband's PhD candidature." "Whether UTS took reasonable steps under section 16 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 to ensure the accuracy of information used in correspondence about BE's husband's candidature." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the alleged loss of correspondence between BE and the Chancellor when that matter was not identified in the internal review application.' "Whether the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 was relevant where the health information referred to related to BE's husband and not BE." 'Whether there had been any breach of section 15 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 concerning amendment of personal information.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Chancellor's letter contained personal information about BE, and therefore the relevant Information Privacy Principles were not engaged. Even if the letter did contain BE's personal information, UTS's internal circulation and quotation of it were for purposes directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected, namely responding to and managing issues concerning BE's husband's PhD candidature, and therefore fell within section 17(b); any disclosure to BE's husband was also for a directly related purpose and UTS had no reason to believe BE would object, attracting section 18(1)(a). The Tribunal found reasonable steps had been...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal determined not to take any action on the matter.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal determines not to take any action on this matter.']