CNC v NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 94

CNC v NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 94

The provision of the applicant's health information to the NSW Police Force's external solicitors in the course of their engagement was a use of the information, not a disclosure. The Tribunal could not determine the alleged contravention of HPP 10 because the evidence did not establish the purpose for which the NSW Police Force collected the health information. The interlocutory summons decision did not create issue estoppel because it concerned privilege under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), whereas HPP 7(2) required consideration of common law legal professional privilege. Applying the common law, and because litigation was not contemplated and the psychiatrist was an independent...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Alleged Contraventions of Health Privacy Principles Under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (nsw) / Principal Judgment
Outcome
The applicant was granted access to the letters of instruction and attached documents containing her health information; the review of the alleged contravention of HPP 10 was relisted for further directions.
Legal Topics
['health Privacy Principles' 'use or Disclosure of Health Information' 'access to Health Information' 'advice Privilege' 'issue Estoppel']
['privacy' 'administrative Law' 'legal Professional Privilege'] ['health Privacy Principles' 'use or Disclosure of Health Information' 'access to Health Information' 'advice Privilege' 'issue Estoppel']

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 of Alleged Contraventions of Health Privacy Principles Under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (nsw) / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the NSW Police Force's provision of the applicant's health information to its external solicitors was a use or a disclosure of information." "Whether the NSW Police Force used the applicant's health information for the purpose for which it was collected or otherwise contravened health privacy principle 10." "Whether the NSW Police Force was permitted by legal professional privilege to refuse access to letters of instruction and attachments containing the applicant's health information under health privacy principle 7." 'Whether an interlocutory finding of privilege under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) gave rise to issue estoppel in the substantive proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The provision of the applicant's health information to the NSW Police Force's external solicitors in the course of their engagement was a use of the information, not a disclosure. The Tribunal could not determine the alleged contravention of HPP 10 because the evidence did not establish the purpose for which the NSW Police Force collected the health information. The interlocutory summons decision did not create issue estoppel because it concerned privilege under s 118 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), whereas HPP 7(2) required consideration of common law legal professional privilege. Applying the common law, and because litigation was not contemplated and the psychiatrist was an independent...

Court Disposition

The applicant was granted access to the letters of instruction and attached documents containing her health information; the review of the alleged contravention of HPP 10 was relisted for further directions.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is to provide the applicant with access to the letters of instructions to a psychiatrist and the attached documents containing her health information, which have been filed confidentially in these proceedings, within 30 days of the date of this decision.' 'The proceedings are to be relisted for...