Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2018] FCA 266

Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner [2018] FCA 266

The Court held that the delegate of the Commissioner did not err in refusing to investigate the applicant's privacy complaint under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It was open on the evidence for the delegate to find that Dr Calvird's collection and disclosure of information were authorised by express or implied consent, fell within Dr Ogawa's bail undertakings and did not breach the National Privacy Principles raised. The applicant's grounds of review were unparticularised and not substantiated by the material before the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'national Privacy Principles' 'exercise of Administrative Discretion' 'personal Information Collection and Disclosure']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law'] ['judicial Review' 'national Privacy Principles' 'exercise of Administrative Discretion' 'personal Information Collection and Disclosure']

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

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the delegate of the Australian Information Commissioner erred in declining to investigate alleged interference with the applicant's privacy under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)" "Whether Dr Calvird breached various National Privacy Principles in the collection and disclosure of the applicant's personal information" 'Whether the decision-maker failed to consider relevant matters or considered irrelevant matters' 'Whether there was evidence for the decision under review']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the delegate of the Commissioner did not err in refusing to investigate the applicant's privacy complaint under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It was open on the evidence for the delegate to find that Dr Calvird's collection and disclosure of information were authorised by express or implied consent, fell within Dr Ogawa's bail undertakings and did not breach the National Privacy Principles raised. The applicant's grounds of review were unparticularised and not substantiated by the material before the Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • ['The application filed 28 November 2016 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.']