Case notes

The Information and Privacy Commission NSW (IPC) publishes case notes to highlight significant and interesting cases from the IPC's jurisdictions.

IPC case notes are intended to serve agencies and practitioners from the private, government and university sectors. The case notes are current at the date published. IPC case notes are not intended to replace legal advice, which should be sought as appropriate.

INFORMATION ACCESS

	Case Note	Summary
November 2017	Seven Network Limited v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District [2017] NSWCATAD 210	Elements of a person’s gait or body shape in CCTV footage may not be sufficiently distinctive alone to prevent the release of CCTV footage where the face, head, neck and any identifying marks such as tattoos are concealed by pixelation.
August 2017	Zonnevylle v Department of Education [2017] NSWCATAD 101	In establishing that searches for information are reasonable, an agency may demonstrate: the use of identifiers provided by an applicant; that officers conducting searches turned their minds to where that information may be held in the agency; and that search officer declarations have been completed.
August 2017	Turner v NSW Health Pathology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service [2017] NSWCATAD 114	When an applicant has provided identifiers or search terms in an access application or in later discussions with the agency, those search terms or identifiers inform and assist the agency in conducting searches. The Tribunal observed inconsistences in the Respondent’s reasons for decision.
April 2017	Pallier v NSW State Emergency Service [2016] NSWCATAD 293	The Tribunal considered the breadth of the public interest considerations for and against disclosure applied to workplace investigation reports, and in doing so found that the balance in favour of disclosing certain aspects of workplace investigation reports may outweigh considerations against disclosure.
April 2017	Commissioner of Police v Danis [2017] NSWCATAP 7	The Appeal Panel distinguished between preliminary decisions and final decisions under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act), and provided guidance in relation to a decision to refuse to deal with an access application under section 60 of the GIPA Act.
April 2017	Bayne v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2016] NSWCATAD 233	Applicant conducted proceedings in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged the Respondent. Tribunal found special circumstances warranted an award of costs, and ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs of $4,575.35 Bayne v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2016] NSWCATAD 233
April 2017	Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199	Discounting processing charges and refusal to deal further with an access application when an advance deposit has not been paid Page v Southern Cross University [2016] NSWCATAD 199
September 2016	Zonnevylle v Department of Education and Communities [2016] NSWCATAD 49 and Zonnevylle v NSW Department of Finance and Services [2016] NSWCATAD 47	The Tribunal dealt with the application of section 112 of the GIPA Act, which enables the Tribunal to refer to the relevant Minister any circumstances where an officer of an agency may be thought to have acted inappropriately with respect to his or her functions under the GIPA Act.
June 2016	Shoebridge v Forestry Corporation [2016] NSWCATAD 93	The Tribunal identified the steps for a decision maker in considering whether the information applied for is of special benefit to the public generally Shoebridge v Forestry Corporation [2016] NSWCATAD 93
June 2016	Abdelaziz v StateCover Mutual Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 1	The Tribunal considered the language of the GIPA Act to be clear in assisting with a decision that a body is not an agency for the purposes of the GIPA Act Abdelaziz v StateCover Mutual Ltd [2015] NSWCATAD 1
March 2016	Mino v Legal Aid NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 24	The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to require an agency to create a new record or to review an agency’s decision not to include information on its disclosure log Mino v Legal Aid NSW [2015] NSWCATAD 245.
March 2016	Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68	Whether an agency can substitute new decision after a review application has been filed, whether in decisions to refuse to confirm or deny an agency is obliged to give detailed reasons and the weighing of considerations when an agency is seeking to refuse to confirm or deny information is held Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Barrett [2015] NSWCATAP 68.
November 2015	Section 110 restraint orders Pittwater Council v Walker [2015] NSWCATAD 34 and Palerang Council, Queanbeyan City Council & Goulburn Mulwaree Council v Powell [2015] NSWCATAD 44	In certain circumstances, public interest considerations favour orders restraining persistent and unmeritorious applications requiring an unreasonable and substantial diversion of resources by an agency.
October 2015	CCB v Department of Education and Communities [2015] NSWCATAD 145	Who is an aggrieved person, what is required to establish legal professional privilege, and can a work health and safety incident form be released to an applicant.
October 2015	National Tertiary Education Union v Southern Cross University [2015] NSWCATAD 151	Whether reviewable decision about imposing processing charge may be made prior to application being decided.
December 2015	D’Adam v New South Wales Treasury and the Premier of New South Wales [2015] NSWCATAP 61	Distinguishing between 'information’and 'document’and the assessment of the dominant purpose in relation to Cabinet information.

PRIVACY

Date	Case Note	Summary
November 2017	CRP v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 164	In considering whether a work address is personal information the test is the content of the information and the context in which it can be said to be about an individual.
August 2015	BKM v Sydney Local Health District [2015] WCATAD 87	The Tribunal's powers to make orders concerning the systemic nature of an information practice/system.
July 2015	ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138	Statements on which organisations rely should be sufficient for an ordinary member of the community to ascertain the answers to the matters listed in HPP 6.
June 2015	AQG v Crown Solicitor’s Office [2015] NSWCATAD 112	The law relating to the use of McKenzie friends and agents in proceedings and implied non-compliance with the PPIP Act.