Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192

Vice-Chancellor Macquarie University v FM [2005] NSWCA 192

The statutory scheme of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), including its definition sections and contextual provisions, indicates that 'personal information held by a public sector agency' does not extend to information held solely in the minds of employees and not recorded in material form; therefore, the disclosure of such information in oral conversations did not contravene s18 of the Act.

Parties
Appellant: Vice-Chancellor, Macquarie University; Respondent: FM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Information Protection Principles, Personal Information, Scope of Information Held
Privacy Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Information Protection Principles Personal Information Scope of Information Held

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vice-Chancellor, Macquarie University

Appellant

FM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether information held in the mind of an employee of a public sector agency is 'personal information' to which the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) applies
  2. 2 Interpretation of definitions in Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether information not recorded in material form is covered by privacy obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), including its definition sections and contextual provisions, indicates that 'personal information held by a public sector agency' does not extend to information held solely in the minds of employees and not recorded in material form; therefore, the disclosure of such information in oral conversations did not contravene s18 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • The order made by the Appeal Panel on 3 September 2004 be set aside