DOQ17 v Australian Financial Security Authority (No 3) [2019] FCA 1488

DOQ17 v Australian Financial Security Authority (No 3) [2019] FCA 1488

No civil cause of action for damages arises from breach of s 121 Family Law Act or National Privacy Principles; applicant failed to establish elements of breach of confidence; no duty of care owed for psychiatric injury as injury was not reasonably foreseeable and pre-existing; no actionable breach of privacy established; all claims dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['breach of Statutory Duty' 'breach of Confidence' 'negligence' 'privacy' 'equitable Obligation' 'damages' 'open Justice' 'statutory Interpretation']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'family Law' 'privacy Law' 'property Law' 'torts'] ['breach of Statutory Duty' 'breach of Confidence' 'negligence' 'privacy' 'equitable Obligation' 'damages' 'open Justice' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Is breach of s 121 of the Family Law Act actionable for damages?' 'Does attaching unredacted Family Court Orders to a land sale contract breach privacy/confidence?' 'Are the respondents subject to National Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)?' "Does disclosure of applicant's name associated with Family Court proceedings amount to actionable breach of privacy/confidence?" 'Did respondents owe a duty of care to the applicant for psychiatric injury resulting from disclosure?' 'Is a cause of action for damages for breach of confidence or privacy established?']

Ratio Decidendi

No civil cause of action for damages arises from breach of s 121 Family Law Act or National Privacy Principles; applicant failed to establish elements of breach of confidence; no duty of care owed for psychiatric injury as injury was not reasonably foreseeable and pre-existing; no actionable breach of privacy established; all claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the first, second, third, fifth and seventh respondents' costs as agreed or assessed." 'The fourth respondent is to advise the Associate and the Applicant whether it intends to press for indemnity costs.' "If not pressed, the applicant is to pay the fourth...