Hudaib v Alfredh Health [2023] VCAT 851

Commentary

  • The majority of the decision focuses on the facts and provides little interpretative guidance on the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic.) (PDP Act). However, the decision does raise an interesting IPP 1.2 element about whether it is unfair for an organisation to open mail addressed to an individual marked ‘private and confidential’ if the mail is sent to the organisation’s address. Given that VCAT ultimately decided that there was no interference with IPP 1.2 for other reasons than the wording ‘private and confidential’, this question remains unresolved.

Facts and decision

  • Mr Hudaib was employed at the Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre (Alfred Health) as a research medical officer. He established an account with a medical journal (BMC) so that he could submit articles in his own right, outside of his role at Alfred Health.
  • Sometime later, BMC sent Mr Hudaib a letter stating that his account with them was unpaid and requested payment of the outstanding charges. As Mr Hudaib was working from home and the letter had been sent to Alfred Health’s address, Alfred Health opened, scanned, and sent the letter to the Mr Hudaib’s email.
  • Mr Hudaib alleged that Alfred Health interfered with IPP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 when it opened and scanned the letter, and IPP 2.1 and 4.1 when it sent the letter to him. Ultimately, VCAT found that there had been no interference with privacy.

IPP 1.2 – Method of collection must be lawful, fair, and not unreasonably instrusive

Submission and decision

  • Mr Hudaib alleged that Alfred Health opening his letter was unfair and a breach of IPP 1.2 because he had been instructed to work from home (following conflict at work) and his mail had never before been opened whilst he was away or on leave.
  • VCAT held that there was no interference with IPP 1.2 as it was fair for an organisation like Alfred Health to open employee mail in circumstances where it was unlikely that that employee would receive it promptly, so that it could assess whether it required a response.
  • Mr Hudaib also alleged that the envelope containing the letter was marked ‘private and confidential’ so opening it was unfair. There were some evidentiary issues with establishing the markings of the envelope and, ultimately, VCAT found that it was unlikely that it had been marked so. However, this begs the question whether a different outcome might be produced it if had been.

 

About this decision

Venue: VCAT
Date of decision: 25/06/2023
Tags: