1 Feb 2003, 09:00

An ACC client ('CD') requested access to his file. He found a report on his file from employment recruitment consultants to ACC assessing the behaviour and attendance of participants at the 'ACC Job Club'. He had not in fact attended the Job Club, although he had enrolled to attend.

CD talked to another ACC client, 'EF', at a social function. EF had attended the ACC Job Club. As a result of the conversation, EF made a request for his own file. In it he found a copy of the report from the employment consultants with comments on him and all the other course participants. EF considered that the disclosure of information about him in the report amounted to an interference with his privacy and that of the other clients named.

His complaint raised issues under rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994.

Rule 11

Rule 11 provides that information should not be disclosed unless one of the stated exceptions applies. ACC did not rely on any of the exceptions in rule 11 and apologised to EF for the disclosure and dissemination of his, and other participants', information.

I took the view that in retaining a copy of the full report on each participant's file, and providing it to EF and CD, ACC had disclosed information in breach of rule 11. Additionally, the disclosure of client information may have been wider.

Harm

For an interference with an individual's privacy to be established, there must be a breach of a privacy principle and some form of harm to the person concerned of the nature prescribed in section 66 of the Act (such as loss or significant loss of dignity).

EF told me he felt humiliated when he attended the social function and was informed by CD that he had a copy of a report about EF. He was distressed on being told about the contents of the report, because the comments about him were derogatory.

I was satisfied that EF had suffered significant humiliation, to the extent required by section 66 of the Privacy Act and I formed the opinion that there had been an interference with his privacy.

As a result of my opinion, ACC offered EF $1,000 in recognition of its error. EF initially rejected this offer and sought legal advice. I asked for his comments on a number of occasions but received no reply.

I thought that ACC's offer provided a reasonable basis for settling the matter, but EF did not appear prepared to accept it. As a result, I did not see that any further action from my office was a good use of my resources.

After advising EF of my decision and of his right to take the matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, I closed my file.

September 2003

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information – ACC – ACC files contained consultant's report about employment course with comments about all course attendees – Breach – Harm – Settlement proposed – Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 11