Tareq Altaranesi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal

[2012] HCASL 129

TAREQ ALTARANESI

v

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 129
S105/2012

1. The applicant was employed by the second respondent (formerly known as the Sydney South West Area Health Service) as a hospital assistant.  On 14 July 2009, the applicant made two applications to the second respondent for review of conduct each of which raised issues in relation to the second respondent's compliance with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) (collectively, "the Acts"). The second respondent's internal review of these complaints found no contravention of the Acts. The applicant applied to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales ("the Tribunal") for review of the second respondent's conduct.

2. On 20 April 2010, the Tribunal made orders in respect of a number of preliminary matters, including to give effect to a decision to determine the application in the absence of the parties ("the interlocutory decisions").   In its substantive decision handed down on 14 September 2010 ("the substantive decision"), the Tribunal found that there had been no contravention of the Acts by the second respondent.  The applicant's complaints were either unsupported by the evidence or covered by an exception to the prohibitions on disclosure.

3. On 18 March 2011, the Appeal Panel of the Tribunal ("the Panel") dismissed the applicant's appeal from the Tribunal's decisions.  The Panel declined to grant the applicant leave to pursue an appeal against the interlocutory decisions (leave being necessary because the appeal was out of time and against decisions of an interlocutory character).  In relation to the substantive decision, the Panel held that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by error and declined to grant leave to the applicant to extend the appeal to a reconsideration of the merits.  The Panel also directed the Registrar to convene a telephone conference in relation to the directions required to consider any costs applications.  On 28 September 2011, it dismissed the applicant's application for costs, allowed the second respondent's application for costs and directed the second respondent to file and serve an account for its costs.  The second respondent's costs were later fixed at $4,500.

4. On 2 April 2012, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed an application by the applicant for an extension of time to appeal the Panel's decision of 18 March 2011.  Basten JA (with whom Sackville AJA agreed) held that no arguable case that the Panel had erred in law had been made out.  The Court of Appeal also refused the applicant leave to appeal from the Panel's decision of 28 September 2011 as to costs and ordered that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs in that Court.

5. None of the matters advanced by the applicant in the materials filed in this Court cast doubt on the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.  No question of law arises which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. 

W.M.C. Gummow
15 August 2012 S.M. Kiefel