Contributors:

[Databases] [Recent Additions] [Translate] [Add a Link] [Disclaimer]

WorldLII >> Categories >> Countries >> Australia >> By Subject >> Privacy >> Courts & Case-Law

• Complaint against the Minister for Housing (NSW) and Others [1994] PLPR 117
  This breach of s18N was settled - but for a public apology, + x$1000 compensation for hurt feelings, and some significant interpretation of the Act . This was the first settled complaint reported, and shows how valuable they can be.
• Complaint: Department of Social Security (Cth), Australian Privacy Commissioner, C1710(P) 1994 [1994] PLPR 142
  DSS requested PComm to investigate; data matching program (not under Act) was in breach of IPP 8 (failure to take reasonable steps before using...).
• Determination: Minister for Administrative Services (1994) 1 PLPR 170 [Search]
  Comm couldn't decide there was any breach - either Dept or Minister leaked, but who knows which? [deficiency - if there is clear breach, consolidated revenue should pay 'victim of crime'].
• Determination: Secretary, Department of Defence [1994] PLPR 116
  Dept breached IPPs 4 and 11; Dept requested formal determination, presumably so it could account for paying $5,000 compensation.
• G Greenleaf "Casenote - Johns v Australian Securities Commission " [1994] PLPR 5
  Privacy Law and Policy Reporter
• Inquiry: Access to severance payment details [1994] PLPR 118
  Disclosure of personal information concerning third parties - onus of proof -Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (BC) s57(2) and s22. Contrast a Commissioner who sees formal reporting of complaints and how they are resolved as one of the main weapons in his armory.
• Johns v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 178 CLR 408
  The High Court inJohns held that a statute giving a power to obtain information (including personal information) defines the purpose for which it can be used, expressly or impliedly, so that any other use is a breach of a statutory duty of confidence. Even if there is authority to disclose, the rules of natural justice may require a hearing before the decision to disclose is made. It seems that the reasoning in Johns v ASC is applicable to information compulsorily collected by State governments as much as by the Commonweatlh Government, so the decision is potentially very significant.