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 woman worked as a volunteer with responsibility for processing a school's book club orders. Toward the end of the school year, the school principal became aware that there were a number of problems relating to the orders.

Having received no response to a telephone call, the principal visited the woman's home one morning to discuss the issues. Despite knocking on both the front and back doors, and calling out, no one opened the door.

The woman's father lived next door. The principal went to the father's house and explained why he needed to speak to his daughter. Both men then returned to the house and the woman came to the door. The principal spoke to the woman about the book orders. She advised the principal she would attend to the outstanding matters and visit the school the following day. She did not keep the appointment.

The principal then wrote to the woman setting out what she had undertaken to do. As it had been necessary to involve the woman's father previously, the principal copied the letter to the father.

The woman complained about the principal's actions in disclosing information about her to her father. There were two disclosures of information – the first when the principal went to the father's house and discussed matters with him and the second when the letter was copied to the father.

Information privacy principle 11 prohibits an agency from disclosing personal information unless an exception applies. It was my view that none of the exceptions to principle 11 applied. While I could understand how the situation had arisen, it was not necessary to involve the complainant's father. The principal acknowledged that he had made an error of judgement.

It was unclear to what extent the complainant had been embarrassed by the disclosures. However, it was appropriate to attempt to conciliate the complaint.

The School Board accepted a settlement suggested by the complainant. The school wrote a letter of apology, acknowledging that the principal's actions were inappropriate, and the Board members and the school principal attended a Privacy Act training workshop. The complainant accepted this as an appropriate resolution. I discontinued my investigation.

December 2006
Disclosure of personal information – School Board – breach of principle 11 – settlement