ALZ v Lismore City Council

Reasons for decision

1. The respondent applies for a timetable for the parties to file and serve their evidence in preparation for the hearing of the claim in this matter. The factual and procedural background was described succinctly by the Appeal Panel in ALZ v Lismore City Council [2016] NSWCATAP 19 [at paragraphs 3-12] as follows: 3. On 31 March 2014, the appellant, who has been given the pseudonym of ALZ, complained about the behaviour of her former employer, Lismore City Council (the Respondent). ALZ alleged the Act had been breached and that she was entitled to relief. 4. In particular, ALZ complained about the inclusion of allegedly unfavourable, misleading and irrelevant personal information in an internal review decision in September 2013, being certain staff statements, interviews, and a formal warning letter, and that the Council then caused that information to be disclosed to others, including the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT), the Privacy Commissioner, and Local Government NSW. 5. Second, in a subsequent statement to the ADT, a particular person (the third person) allegedly: 1. Used and disclosed incorrect, misleading and unfavourable personal information about ALZ to imply she had been performance managed for dishonesty; 2. Used and disclosed irrelevant information about a worker's compensation claim; and 3. Used and disclosed health information from a psychiatric report "misrepresenting, discussing, paraphrasing and quoting from the report against my interests to further her own". 6. There was a further complaint about the third person's use of email in September 2012. 7. For convenience, we describe the three issues as follows: 1. The internal review decision issue; 2. The third person's statement issue; and 3. The third person's email issue. 8. The alleged conduct occurred in September 2012, September 2013, and October 2013. ALZ had sought an internal review seeking relief under the Act including: 1. Deleting and destroying the doctor's report; 2. Ensuring that the reviewer measured the conduct complained of against the privacy principles but did not access a copy of the doctor's report as the content of the report containing ALZ's psychiatric health information; 3. Retracting or correcting certain information in the third person's statement; 4. Notifying the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, this Tribunal, and an officer of Local Government NSW of the retraction or correction; 5. Training for the Respondent's staff; and 6. An apology. 9. One of the main issues concerning breach of the Act was whether the Council was exempt from compliance with various privacy and personal information protection principles because of the circumstances in which the collection, use or disclosure of personal information had occurred. Reasons 10. The Respondent did not conduct the requested review. External review was then sought in this Tribunal: see s 55 of the Act. 11. The matter came before the Tribunal which made 'jurisdictional' determinations as follows: 1. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review those aspects of part (a) of the application to which the section 41 Direction applies. The Tribunal determines to take no further action in regard to the remainder of part (a) of the application. 2. Part (b) of the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 3. Part (c) of the application is remitted for redetermination by the Council. The review is to be completed within 60 days from the date of this decision. The matter is listed for a further planning meeting on Tuesday 19 April 2016 at 9:30 am. 12. The appellant appealed to the Appeal Panel.