Shaw v Yarra City Council [2022] VCAT 811

Commentary

  • This decision demonstrates that a practical approach to the application of the IPPs is necessary: an entity can’t be taken to have disclosed personal information through its agent or employee where that person does not have access to it, even though the organisation may hold the personal information within a separate function.

Facts and decision

  • Ms Shaw telephoned Yarra City Council (Council) to report a parked car over her driveway in breach of parking regulations. A Parking Officer attended and proceeded to issue an infringement notice to the vehicle.
  • Whilst in the process of doing so, the owner of the vehicle, Ms Shaw neighbour, came out to speak to the Parking Officer to enquiry what had prompted him to attend the area. Ms Shaw believed that the Parking Officer disclosed her identity to her neighbour as the complainant, which caused the neighbour to subsequently vilify her.

IPP 2.1 (Use and disclosure) and IPP 4.1 (Data security)

Submissions

  • Ms Shaw alleged that Council interfered with IPP 2.1 and/or 4.1 when the Parking Officer disclosed to her neighbour that she had rang Council to complain about the parked car, which was what prompted the Parking Officer’s attendance. Ms Shaw alleged that she observed the interaction and overheard the Parking Officer use the words the “person who complained was the person over whose driveway you parked.”
  • Council contended that it had not interfered with IPP 2.1 and/or IPP 4.1 because the Parking Officer did not have knowledge about Ms Shaw’s identity and therefore could not have disclosed this to her neighbour.

Decision

  • VCAT looked at the evidence provided by both parties and ultimately agreed with Council’s position that there was no interference with IPP 2.1 and/or 4.1, dismissing the complaint. The specific factors VCAT considered which led to its conclusion that the Parking Officer was not aware of Ms Shaw’s identity included:
    • According to Council’s standard operating procedure, Council’s reception area only conveys the location and nature of a complaint, not the identity of a complainant, to a Parking Officer.
    • The Parking Officer provided sworn testimony that when he received the call from Council’s reception, he did not receive information pertaining to Ms Shaw’s identity.
    • The Parking Officer took notes of his interaction with the neighbour immediately before he left the premises. These did not indicate that he had disclosed the Ms Shaw’s identity to the neighbour.
    • The Parking Officer was a direct participant in the conversation with the neighbour, whilst Ms Shaw must have been some further distance away and may have misheard.
    • There were other ways in which the neighbour could have inferred that Ms Shaw had made the complaint to Council, such as that it was parked over her driveway.

About this decision

Venue: VCAT
Date of decision: 22/06/2022