TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3319

TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 3319

The Ministry misapplied r 11(2)(d) by effectively reintroducing an imminence requirement and setting the 'necessary' threshold higher than 'needed or required'; it failed to undertake an evidence-based assessment of the anticipated effectiveness of disclosing the requested individual-level data and of identified less privacy-intrusive alternatives; reliance on iwi governance concerns and process amounted to imposing an authorization requirement and the exclusion of applicants from key consultation materially breached natural justice; the Director-General's refusal and exercise of discretion were therefore unlawful and inconsistent with the statutory purpose, and the Court directed urgent...

Citation
[2021] NZHC 3319
Parties
First Applicant: Te Pou Matakana Limited (Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency); Second Applicant: Whānau Tahi Limited; Respondent: Attorney-General; Intervener: Privacy Commissioner
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Challenged Administrative Decision
Outcome
Application for judicial review partly allowed; Court found errors of law and fact in the Ministry's decision-making and directed the Ministry to take specified urgent steps within three working days to complete decisions on data sharing and to review its policy on sharing data for those with only one dose
Legal Topics
Health Information Privacy Code R 11(2)(d), Necessity Test, Consultation With Iwi, Natural Justice, Māori Data Sovereignty, Data Sharing and Governance, Administrative Discretion, Equity in Vaccination
Privacy Law Administrative Law Health Law Treaty of Waitangi Law Public Health Health Information Privacy Code R 11(2)(d) Necessity Test Consultation With Iwi +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Te Pou Matakana Limited (Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency)

First Applicant

Whānau Tahi Limited

Second Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Privacy Commissioner

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Challenged Administrative Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ministry misapplied r 11(2)(d) of the Health Information Privacy Code by reintroducing an imminence threshold
  2. 2 Whether Ministry applied incorrect standard for 'necessary'
  3. 3 Whether Ministry made errors of fact about Whānau Ora coverage

Ratio Decidendi

The Ministry misapplied r 11(2)(d) by effectively reintroducing an imminence requirement and setting the 'necessary' threshold higher than 'needed or required'; it failed to undertake an evidence-based assessment of the anticipated effectiveness of disclosing the requested individual-level data and of identified less privacy-intrusive alternatives; reliance on iwi governance concerns and process amounted to imposing an authorization requirement and the exclusion of applicants from key consultation materially breached natural justice; the Director-General's refusal and exercise of discretion were therefore unlawful and inconsistent with the statutory purpose, and the Court directed urgent...

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review partly allowed; Court found errors of law and fact in the Ministry's decision-making and directed the Ministry to take specified urgent steps within three working days to complete decisions on data sharing and to review its policy on sharing data for those with only one dose

Orders

  • Ministry to complete consideration of and make final decisions on provision of individual-level Māori vaccination data in all remaining Te Ika-a-Māui/North Island areas within three working days, having regard to findings in this judgment
  • Ministry to review its decision on sharing data for individuals who have received only one vaccine dose (second dose data) in light of the Ministry's public follow-up policy and the findings in this judgment, and decide on any disclosure within three working days