Webb v iCare NSW [2023] NSWCATAD 63

Webb v iCare NSW [2023] NSWCATAD 63

The summonses had a legitimate forensic purpose because, if the Respondent's threshold issues failed, an issue in dispute was whether the Applicant's relevant personal information was disclosed by Ms Tzinberg of the Respondent to NIPPN via Ms Gibbs-Steele, and the testimony of both persons could throw light on...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review Under Ss53 and 55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Procedural Rulings / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Summonses and for Suppression Orders
Outcome
The Respondent's application to set aside the summonses was refused and the Respondent's application for orders under ss61(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 was refused.
Legal Topics
['administrative Review of Conduct Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998' 'information Privacy Principle 11' 'summonses' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice']
['administrative Law' 'privacy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['administrative Review of Conduct Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998' 'information Privacy Principle 11' 'summonses' 'legitimate Forensic Purpose' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review Under Ss53 and 55 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998; Procedural Rulings / Interlocutory Applications to Set Aside Summonses and for Suppression Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the two summonses issued by the Registrar at the Applicant's request should be set aside for lack of legitimate forensic purpose." 'Whether the Tribunal should make orders under ss64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting or restricting disclosure or publication of the names, positions or related material concerning officers and employees of the Respondent.' "Whether testimony from Ms Tzinberg and Ms Gibbs-Steele had apparent relevance to whether Applicant's personal information was disclosed to NIPPN or to Ms Gibbs-Steele in her role as the Respondent's Privacy Officer."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses had a legitimate forensic purpose because, if the Respondent's threshold issues failed, an issue in dispute was whether the Applicant's relevant personal information was disclosed by Ms Tzinberg of the Respondent to NIPPN via Ms Gibbs-Steele, and the testimony of both persons could throw light on whether the disclosure was to Ms Gibbs-Steele as NIPPN's representative or as the Respondent's Privacy Officer. The suppression applications were refused because the Respondent's material, which largely concerned alleged conduct in other proceedings not involving the Respondent, did not establish special or out of the ordinary circumstances or otherwise overcome the presumption in...

Court Disposition

The Respondent's application to set aside the summonses was refused and the Respondent's application for orders under ss61(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 was refused.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's Application for Miscellaneous Matters lodged on 12 January 2023 to set aside the two summonses issued by the Registrar of the Tribunal is refused." "The Respondent's Application for Miscellaneous Matters lodged on 7 December 2022 (as amended on 17 January 2023) seeking four orders under ss61(1)(a)...