EJE v Charles Sturt University [2021] NSWCATAD 190

EJE v Charles Sturt University [2021] NSWCATAD 190

The application as filed was based on the 31 instances considered in the University's internal review, but additional matters later raised were not part of the application. Most of the specified instances did not disclose conduct reviewable under the PPIP Act, were based on misinterpretations, concerned...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw) Concerning Privacy Complaints After Internal Review / Respondent's Interlocutory Application for Dismissal Under S 55(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and for Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed in part; specified items dismissed, remaining proceedings to continue to a further case conference; costs declined.
Legal Topics
['internal Review Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw)' 'information Protection Principles' 'accuracy of Personal Information' 'scope of Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'summary Dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'privacy' 'civil Procedure'] ['internal Review Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw)' 'information Protection Principles' 'accuracy of Personal Information' 'scope of Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'summary Dismissal of Proceedings' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings']

Source-derived case record

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 Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (nsw) Concerning Privacy Complaints After Internal Review / Respondent's Interlocutory Application for Dismissal Under S 55(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal application was within the scope of the applicant's internal review application under s 53 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)." 'Whether particular items in the application disclosed reviewable conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).' 'Whether particular items were frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance for the purposes of s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'Whether the respondent had already responded appropriately to matters such that no further order could be made.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted a costs order against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application as filed was based on the 31 instances considered in the University's internal review, but additional matters later raised were not part of the application. Most of the specified instances did not disclose conduct reviewable under the PPIP Act, were based on misinterpretations, concerned non-reviewable disputes, third-party information or trivial name variations, or otherwise could not amount to a breach of an Information Protection Principle. Those items were therefore misconceived or lacking in substance and were dismissed under s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The University did not establish that several remaining items should be summarily...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in part; specified items dismissed, remaining proceedings to continue to a further case conference; costs declined.

Orders

  • ['Items 2-3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21-26 and 28-31 inclusive contained in the application filed 22 December 2020 are dismissed pursuant to s 55(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.' 'The proceedings are referred to the Registry to be listed for a further case conference.']