Marden v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAD 34

Marden v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAD 34

There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of complainant’s personal information under the GIPA Act; this outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The applicant is entitled to access information which is her personal information or the substance of the complaint, but not complainant identity, contact details or handwriting. The Pharmacy Council’s decision to provide access by creating a new record (typed and redacted) is correct and preferable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review / Final Decision
Outcome
Decision varied and affirmed in part; access to redacted information affirmed; refusal of access to certain personal information substituted.
Legal Topics
['access to Government Information' 'personal Information' 'procedural Fairness' 'disclosure of Complainant Identity']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'health Law'] ['access to Government Information' 'personal Information' 'procedural Fairness' 'disclosure of Complainant Identity']

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

Administrative Review / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Is there an overriding public interest against disclosure of complainant's personal information in a professional conduct complaint?" 'To what extent is the applicant entitled to access information as a matter of procedural fairness?' "Does the legislative scheme under the Health Care Complaints Act affect the applicant's entitlement to complainant's identity?"]

Ratio Decidendi

There is an overriding public interest against disclosure of complainant’s personal information under the GIPA Act; this outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The applicant is entitled to access information which is her personal information or the substance of the complaint, but not complainant identity, contact details or handwriting. The Pharmacy Council’s decision to provide access by creating a new record (typed and redacted) is correct and preferable.

Court Disposition

Decision varied and affirmed in part; access to redacted information affirmed; refusal of access to certain personal information substituted.

Orders

  • ['The Pharmacy Council’s decision to provide access by creating a new record (typed and redacted) is affirmed.' 'The previous decisions refusing/providing access are set aside; substituted decisions refuse access to specified complainant personal information and grant access to remaining information.' 'Pharmacy...