Our website uses cookies so we can analyse our site usage and give you the best experience. Click "Accept" if you’re happy with this, or click "More" for information about cookies on our site, how to opt out, and how to disable cookies altogether.

We respect your Do Not Track preference.

A man saw a businesswoman on television and rang her to discuss a business proposal. She was not interested. He persisted in ringing her, and allegedly threatened her. The woman complained to the Police, and engaged a private investigator who discovered the man had prior convictions.

The man left a message for the woman to call him at work and indicated unpleasant consequences if she did not. She rang, but he was not there. She spoke to his employer, and told the employer of the man's harassment and his criminal convictions. The man complained that in doing so, she had disclosed personal information, which interfered with his privacy and endangered his job.

However, in my opinion the circumstances of the complaint excluded it from consideration under the provisions of the Privacy Act.

Section 56

Before considering whether the disclosure was in breach of principle 11, I first considered whether section 56 was relevant:

Personal information relating to domestic affairs -
Nothing in the information privacy principles applies in respect of -
(a) the collection of personal information by an agency that is an individual; or
(b) personal information that is held by an agency that is an individual, -
where that personal information is collected or held by that individual solely or principally for the purposes of, or in connection with, that individual's personal, family, or household affairs.

From my investigation, I concluded that the man's initial approach was to put a business proposal. However, in subsequent phone calls, the man tried to discuss personal matters with the woman, and contacted other family members in an effort to reach her. In my opinion, none of the actions of these parties after the first phone call were really business-related. Section 56 applied.

The man's solicitor argued that section 56 covered only the collection and holding of information, not the disclosure of information. This issue had arisen in the case of S v P (1998) 5 HRNZ 610 and the Tribunal concluded that the expression 'held' in section 56(b) included the use and disclosure of personal information.

Section 56 refers to an individual collecting and/or holding information. Initially we wondered whether it also covered disclosing information. On this point we accept the submissions of the Privacy Commissioner that the information privacy principles concern collecting (Principles 1 to 4) and holding (Principles 5-11) information. The protection, use or disclosure of information concern obligations that can only arise if an agency holds information. There is therefore no need for section 56 to specifically refer to those obligations because they are covered by the use of the word hold in section 56(b). Section 56, therefore, also covers the disclosure of information.

As I was of the opinion that section 56 applied, the possibility of a breach of principle 11 did not arise. I advised the man of his right to take the matter to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and closed my file.

February 2003

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Individual - Details of harassment and prior convictions disclosed to man's employer - Information held in connection with personal affairs - Privacy Act 1993, s 56