GCE v Department of Education [2025] NSWCATAD 45

GCE v Department of Education [2025] NSWCATAD 45

The Tribunal was not persuaded on the evidence that any personal or health information, opinion or otherwise, of the applicant was recorded or disclosed by the respondent (or its staff) to external third parties as alleged. The applicant did not challenge the respondent's evidence and did not establish on the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: GCE; Respondent: Department of Education
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Personal Information, Health Information, Disclosure to Third Parties, Internal Review, Onus of Proof
Administrative Law Privacy Law Equal Opportunity Personal Information Health Information Disclosure to Third Parties Internal Review Onus of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GCE

Applicant

Department of Education

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department of Education breached the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) or the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) by disclosing personal or health information of the applicant to third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not persuaded on the evidence that any personal or health information, opinion or otherwise, of the applicant was recorded or disclosed by the respondent (or its staff) to external third parties as alleged. The applicant did not challenge the respondent's evidence and did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the alleged disclosures occurred or that information protected under the relevant statutes was 'held' and then wrongfully disclosed within the meaning of the Acts. The applicant did not discharge her onus of proof.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; decision affirmed.

Orders

  • The decision under review is affirmed.
  • The Tribunal takes no action on the matter.