Quick v Transport Accident Commission [2022] VCAT 622

Commentary

IPP 1.5 – Organisation must provide a collection notice

  • This decision asserts that it may not be reasonable for an organisation to provide a collection notice to an individual where it has collected their personal information indirectly (from a third party) in circumstances where doing so would jeopardise an investigation they are planning to carry out on the basis of that information.

Facts and decision

  • Mr Quick was receiving compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic.) (TAA) for injuries he had received in a transport accident.
  • In 2018, two or three of Mr Quick’s former house mates accessed his personal information and sent this to the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), alleging that the information showed that Mr Quick was defrauding the TAC.
  • Mr Quick alleged that the TAC then interfered with IPP 1.1, IPP 1.2, IPP 1.5, IPP 2.1 and IPP 3.1 when it collected the personal information from his former housemates and used this to investigate his TAA claim.
  • VCAT found a substantial portion of the allegations unproven because of the lack of evidence provided by Mr Quick. This case note goes into detail only on those allegations where VCAT provided some analysis despite the lack of evidence.

IPP 1.1 – Collection must be necessary for organisation’s functions or activities

  • VCAT held that the collection of Mr Quick’s personal information was authorised under IPP 1.1.
  • VCAT held that the functions of the TAC included the investigation and prosecution of individuals suspected of defrauding the Fund from which injured persons receive compensation. VCAT looked at sections 11 to 13 of the TAC’s enabling legislation, the TAA, to come to this conclusion.
  • VCAT then considered that the personal information was necessary to carry out this function, because the material sent by former housemates included allegations of Mr Quick defrauding the Fund.

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

  • VCAT held that because Mr Quick had not led any evidence to demonstrate how the collection by the TAC was unfair or unlawful, it was not open for VCAT to conclude that there had been an interference with IPP 1.2.
  • VCAT also held that even if Mr Quick had provided evidence that showed the former housemates having come across the information unlawfully, there was no evidence that showed that the TAC had participated in or encouraged this behaviour.

IPP 1.5 (Organisation must provide a collection notice) and s 15 (Exemption for law enforcement)

  • VCAT held that the TAC was exempt from complying with IPP 1.5 as a result of s 15 of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic.) (PDP Act). VCAT provided minimal reasoning around this, although it did look at Part 8 of the TAA to come to its conclusion that when exercising those powers, the TAC was acting as a law enforcement agency.
  • In the alternative, VCAT considered that even if the TAC was not exempt due to s 15 of the PDP Act, it would have been unreasonable for the TAC to notify Mr Quick about the collection, as this may have jeopardized its ability to investigate.

About this decision

Venue: VCAT
Date of decision: 07/06/2022