Protecting Information Rights – Advancing Information Policy

Phone iconCONTACT US: 1300 363 992
 

Types

Topic(s): Disclosure
 

F v Health Service Provider [2010] PrivCmrA 7

document icon pdf (323.38 KB)


Case Citation:

F v Health Service Provider [2010] PrivCmrA 7

Subject Heading:

Disclosure of personal information

Law:

National Privacy Principle 2.1 in Schedule 3 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Facts:

The complainant had a dispute with their health service provider.  The dispute was heard before the New South Wales Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT). 

Before the hearing commenced, the health service provider gave a copy of its supporting documents to the complainant and the CTTT.  These documents included details of the complainant's Medicare benefits and other personal information relevant to the matter.  The complainant alleged that the health service provider had improperly disclosed their information to the CTTT.

Issues:

NPP 2.1 provides that an organisation must not use or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose other than the primary purpose of collection unless an exception in NPP 2.1(a)-(h) applies.

Outcome:

The Privacy Commissioner conducted preliminary inquiries into the complaint under section 42 of the Privacy Act.

The health service provider advised it had received a direction from the CTTT to provide copies of relevant documents to the Tribunal member and the other party at the hearing.  The CTTT has authority to issue procedural directions under section 29 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW).

NPP 2.1(g) permits an organisation to disclose personal information if required or authorised by or under law.

The Commissioner considered that the procedural direction issued by the CTTT was authority under law for the health service provider to disclose the complainant's personal information.

The Commissioner decided not to formally investigate the matter and closed the complaint under section 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act, on the basis that the health service provider had not interfered with the complainant's privacy.

Office of the Privacy Commissioner
May 2010