pdf (150.03 KB)

Case Citation:

K v Commonwealth Agency [2010] PrivCmrA 13

Subject Heading:

Improper disclosure of personal information

Law:

Information Privacy Principle 11 in Part III Division 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

The following case was decided by the Privacy Commissioner prior to 1 November 2010. On 1 November 2010 all the powers of the Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy Act were conferred on the Australian Information Commissioner.

Facts:

The complainant was a client of an Australian Government agency. The complainant alleged that the agency improperly disclosed their personal information to their former partner.

The agency investigated the complaint and came to the view that it had improperly disclosed the complainant's personal information. The agency found it had not complied with the requirements of IPP 11. To resolve the complaint, the agency:

• made a written apology to the complainant for the improper disclosure of the personal information
• provided training to the employee involved in the disclosure
• offered monetary compensation to the complainant for non-economic loss.

The complainant was not satisfied with the steps the agency took to resolve their complaint.  In particular, the complainant considered that the amount of the compensation offered by the agency was inadequate.

Issues:

IPP 11 prohibits agencies from disclosing personal information to anyone other than the individual concerned, unless an exception applies.

Outcome:

The Commissioner accepted the complaint and considered the information provided, including the question of whether the compensation offered was adequate.

Section 41(2)(a) of the Privacy Act gives the Commissioner the discretion not to investigate a complaint if the complainant has complained to the respondent and the respondent has adequately dealt with the matter.

The Commissioner came to the view that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the compensation offered was inadequate. Specifically, the complainant had not provided any evidence to support their claims concerning non-economic loss. As such, the Commissioner found that the amount of compensation offered by the agency was satisfactory.

The Commissioner also found that the improper disclosure was a one-off incident that did not raise systemic issues.   

The Commissioner decided that the steps taken by the agency to resolve the complaint had adequately dealt with the complaint. The Commissioner advised the complainant of this view.

The Commissioner gave the complainant the opportunity to provide further evidence to substantiate their claim. However, the complainant did not do so. The Commissioner declined to investigate the complaint under section 41(2)(a) of the Privacy Act on the grounds that the agency had adequately dealt with the matter.

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
December 2010