McEwan v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (No 2) [2022] FCA 1488

McEwan v Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (No 2) [2022] FCA 1488

The Information Commissioner's decision was not infected by jurisdictional error because s 355-50(1)(a) of sch 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) refers to the disclosing entity being a taxation officer and does not confine authorised recipients to taxation officers. On the material before the Information Commissioner, the disclosures were made to prospective witnesses for the purpose of preparing witness statements in an investigation of federal offences stemming from a taxation audit. Applying the broad construction of duties of a taxation officer, the disclosures were made in performing those duties and were authorised by s 355-50. The applicant's challenge to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Australian Information Commissioner Under the Privacy Act 1988 (cth) / Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'australian Information Commissioner Decision Not to Investigate Complaint' 'australian Privacy Principles' 'disclosure of Protected Information by Taxation Officers' 'taxation Administration Act 1953 (cth) Sch 1 S 355 50' 'jurisdictional Error']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'taxation Law'] ['judicial Review' 'australian Information Commissioner Decision Not to Investigate Complaint' 'australian Privacy Principles' 'disclosure of Protected Information by Taxation Officers' 'taxation Administration Act 1953 (cth) Sch 1 S 355 50' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 Judicial Review of a Decision of the Australian Information Commissioner Under the Privacy Act 1988 (cth) / Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Australian Information Commissioner's decision not to investigate further under s 41(1)(a) and s 41(1)(da) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) was infected by jurisdictional error." 'Whether s 355-50 of sch 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) permitted taxation officers to disclose protected information to third parties in the course of an investigation of federal offences stemming from a taxation audit.' 'Whether the complained-of disclosures constituted an interference with privacy or were otherwise authorised by law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Information Commissioner's decision was not infected by jurisdictional error because s 355-50(1)(a) of sch 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) refers to the disclosing entity being a taxation officer and does not confine authorised recipients to taxation officers. On the material before the Information Commissioner, the disclosures were made to prospective witnesses for the purpose of preparing witness statements in an investigation of federal offences stemming from a taxation audit. Applying the broad construction of duties of a taxation officer, the disclosures were made in performing those duties and were authorised by s 355-50. The applicant's challenge to the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be fixed in a lump-sum by a registrar if not agreed."]