CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 79

CEU v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 79

The Tribunal found that the University did not breach Health Privacy Principles 2, 9 or 11 in the five respects alleged. The information collected was relevant and not excessive or intrusive, Dr Cai's diagnosis was accurate at the relevant time, and internal communication between administrative units did not constitute 'disclosure' under HPP 11 or, alternatively, was directly related to the purpose for which information was collected and would have been reasonably expected. There was insufficient evidence of any improper disclosure or inaccuracy.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed; no breach of Health Privacy Principles established; respondent’s interlocutory application to dismiss for want of prosecution also dismissed; no further action ordered; directions for any costs application and submissions given.
Legal Topics
['health Privacy Principles' 'information Collection' 'disclosure of Health Information' 'accuracy of Health Information' 'administrative Review Under Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'health Law'] ['health Privacy Principles' 'information Collection' 'disclosure of Health Information' 'accuracy of Health Information' 'administrative Review Under Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act']

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

Administrative Review / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the University's Counselling Service collected 11 pages from the applicant's diary on 17 April 2015 as alleged and, if so, whether the information collected was irrelevant, excessive, inaccurate or unreasonably intrusive in breach of Health Privacy Principle 2." "Whether Dr Cai's diagnosis of alcohol dependence and allegation of alcohol abuse in his letter of 21 April 2015 were inaccurate and thus breached Health Privacy Principle 9." "Whether the provision of Dr Cai's letter by Dr Cai to the Special Needs Service was a disclosure within the meaning of Health Privacy Principle 11 and, if so, whether it was disclosed for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected." "Whether Dr Cai's oral disclosures to Ms Edwards on 22 May 2015 were disclosures in terms of Health Privacy Principle 11 and, if so, whether they were made for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was collected." 'Whether Ms Widjaja disclosed to Ms Edwards on 22 May 2015 that the applicant suffered cognitive impairment or alcohol dependence and, if so, whether that constituted a disclosure in terms of Health Privacy Principle 11.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the University did not breach Health Privacy Principles 2, 9 or 11 in the five respects alleged. The information collected was relevant and not excessive or intrusive, Dr Cai's diagnosis was accurate at the relevant time, and internal communication between administrative units did not constitute 'disclosure' under HPP 11 or, alternatively, was directly related to the purpose for which information was collected and would have been reasonably expected. There was insufficient evidence of any improper disclosure or inaccuracy.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no breach of Health Privacy Principles established; respondent’s interlocutory application to dismiss for want of prosecution also dismissed; no further action ordered; directions for any costs application and submissions given.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's interlocutory application to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution is dismissed." 'The respondent did not breach Health Privacy Principle 2 by collecting a document from the applicant on 17 April 2015.' "Dr Cai's letter to Special Needs Service dated 21 April 2015 did not breach Health...