EJE v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 33

EJE v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 33

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Respondent's internal review decision because the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to conduct raised in the internal review request and to conduct of the Respondent; many complaints concerned other agencies or new matters. For the complaints within jurisdiction, the Applicant did not establish that the Respondent collected or used inaccurate personal information in breach of the PPIP Act, and the Respondent was generally entitled to rely on information supplied by parties to leases or bond transactions and had taken reasonable steps in the circumstances. No contravention of the PPIP Act was found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Administrative Review Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 / Final Decision; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The respondent's reviewable decision of 23 February 2021 was affirmed and the Tribunal decided to take no further action.
Legal Topics
['personal Information' 'information Privacy Principles' 'collection of Personal Information' 'use of Personal Information' 'accuracy of Personal Information' 'internal Review' 'administrative Review Jurisdiction' 'residential Tenancy Bonds']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law'] ['personal Information' 'information Privacy Principles' 'collection of Personal Information' 'use of Personal Information' 'accuracy of Personal Information' 'internal Review' 'administrative Review Jurisdiction' 'residential Tenancy Bonds']

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

Application for Administrative Review Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 / Final Decision; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondent breached the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 in relation to collection, storage, disclosure, alteration or use of the Applicant's personal information." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider complaints not raised in the internal review request or concerning agencies other than the Respondent.' "Whether information in tenancy and rental bond records was the Applicant's personal information and was inaccurate, misleading, incomplete or used without reasonable accuracy checks." 'Whether any proven contravention caused damage or harm to the Applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Respondent's internal review decision because the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to conduct raised in the internal review request and to conduct of the Respondent; many complaints concerned other agencies or new matters. For the complaints within jurisdiction, the Applicant did not establish that the Respondent collected or used inaccurate personal information in breach of the PPIP Act, and the Respondent was generally entitled to rely on information supplied by parties to leases or bond transactions and had taken reasonable steps in the circumstances. No contravention of the PPIP Act was found.

Court Disposition

The respondent's reviewable decision of 23 February 2021 was affirmed and the Tribunal decided to take no further action.

Orders

  • ["The respondent's reviewable decision of 23 February 2021 is affirmed pursuant to s 63(3)(a) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997." 'Pursuant to s 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the Tribunal decides to take no further action.']