ERJ v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2022] NSWCATAD 260

ERJ v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2022] NSWCATAD 260

ADAHPS collected the Applicant's health information for the primary purpose of providing case management support services, not healthcare treatment and follow-up care. The disclosures to HARP after HARP was no longer providing services were not for that primary purpose, although they were for a directly related...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Alleged Breach of Health Privacy Principles / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application upheld in part; breaches of HPP 11 found in respect of the 31 July 2020 communication and the 4 August 2020 case conference; apology ordered.
Legal Topics
['health Privacy Principle 11' 'disclosure of Health Information' 'consent to Disclosure' 'primary Purpose and Secondary Purpose' 'reasonable Expectation of Disclosure' 'internal and External Review of Public Sector Agency Conduct']
['privacy Law' 'administrative Law' 'health Information Privacy'] ['health Privacy Principle 11' 'disclosure of Health Information' 'consent to Disclosure' 'primary Purpose and Secondary Purpose' 'reasonable Expectation of Disclosure' 'internal and External Review of Public Sector Agency Conduct']

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 of Alleged Breach of Health Privacy Principles / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's Case Manager disclosed the Applicant's health information to HARP Clinic staff or others outside ADAHPS without consent in breach of HPP 11." 'Whether the disclosures were made for the primary purpose for which the health information was collected.' 'If the disclosures were for a secondary purpose, whether the secondary purpose was directly related to the primary purpose and whether the Applicant would reasonably expect the disclosure.' 'What remedy should be ordered if breaches of HPP 11 were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

ADAHPS collected the Applicant's health information for the primary purpose of providing case management support services, not healthcare treatment and follow-up care. The disclosures to HARP after HARP was no longer providing services were not for that primary purpose, although they were for a directly related secondary purpose of monitoring and protecting the Applicant's welfare. The 11 June and 15 July 2020 communications were made with the Applicant's consent. However, after the Applicant's clear 30 July 2020 withdrawal of consent to share personal information with any third party, he would not reasonably have expected the Applicant's Case Manager to disclose his health information in...

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; breaches of HPP 11 found in respect of the 31 July 2020 communication and the 4 August 2020 case conference; apology ordered.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act the publication or broadcast of the name of the Applicant in these proceedings is prohibited. Note: A reference to the name of the Applicant includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the Applicant or is likely to...