EY v Department of Corrective Services (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 25

EY v Department of Corrective Services (GD) [2009] NSWADTAP 25

Leave was granted because the appeal raised a question of law of general significance about the construction of an exclusion from personal information. The appeal was dismissed because the information supplied to GREAT was furnished in an employment appeal, was expressly presented as bearing on EY's suitability for the sensitive Assistant Superintendent, Armoury Security & Intelligence Branch position, and was relevant to that suitability. It therefore fell within Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, s 4(3)(j), and was not regulated as personal information. The words of s 4(3)(j) did not support limiting the exclusion to first-time applicants, and the identical HRIPA...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Panel Appeal Concerning Review Under Privacy Legislation / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision; Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['personal Information' 'exclusion for Information About Suitability for Appointment or Employment as a Public Sector Official' 'public Sector Promotion Appeal' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'health Information Privacy']
['privacy Law' 'administrative Law' 'employment Law'] ['personal Information' 'exclusion for Information About Suitability for Appointment or Employment as a Public Sector Official' 'public Sector Promotion Appeal' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'health Information Privacy']

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

Appeal Panel Appeal Concerning Review Under Privacy Legislation / Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision; Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether information supplied by the Department to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal was excluded from the definition of personal information by Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, s 4(3)(j).' 'Whether the exclusion in s 4(3)(j) applies only to first-time applicants for public sector employment or appointment and not to continuing employees seeking promotion.' 'Whether reliance on the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 would alter the result.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the appeal raised a question of law of general significance about the construction of an exclusion from personal information. The appeal was dismissed because the information supplied to GREAT was furnished in an employment appeal, was expressly presented as bearing on EY's suitability for the sensitive Assistant Superintendent, Armoury Security & Intelligence Branch position, and was relevant to that suitability. It therefore fell within Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, s 4(3)(j), and was not regulated as personal information. The words of s 4(3)(j) did not support limiting the exclusion to first-time applicants, and the identical HRIPA...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']