Volume II

Issue : 12: June 10, 2004

• Plaintiff Uses PIPEDA to Argue against the Admissibility of Video Surveillance
• RCMP Charges Mississauga Teen Spammer
• British Columbia Privacy Commissioner Launches Patriot Act Probe
• New Bill Enables Import and Online Purchases of Pharmaceutical Drugs
• RIAA Files 493 More Lawsuits against File Sharers
• New York Applies Telephone Regulation to VoIP
• Australian Court Sets Important Privacy Law Precedent
• CDRP Panellist Declines to Transfer .Ca Domain Name In default Case
• Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Online Defamation Warrants Increased Damages

Home > Volume II > Issue 12: June 10, 2004 > Australian Court Sets Important Privacy Law Precedent

Australian Court Sets Important Privacy Law Precedent

The Australian Federal Court has recently issued an injunction against a union who had used an internal phone list to collect personal information from the employees of a television station. The union, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance ("MEAA") employed a call centre to poll employees of Seven Network (Operations) Limited ("Channel Seven") as to their views on unions, their thoughts about joining a union, and other related matters.

Justice Gyles granted the injunction to stop MEAA from engaging in conduct which would contravene Australia's Privacy Act 1988 (the "Act"). The judge rejected Channel Seven's claim that MEAA was seeking to affect the outcome of contract negotiations via intimidation tactics, but granted the injunction stating that the collection of personal information was illegitimate. Justice Gyles felt the call centre, MEAA's agent, did not provide sufficient information to the employees polled. The judge pointed to specific sections of the Act that require those collecting information to disclose the reason for the collection, the identity of those collecting the data, the fact that the telephoned person is able to gain access to the information being collected, and the types of organizations who might be provided with the information collected.

Interestingly, because MEAA could not account for the source of their Channel Seven phone directory, Justice Gyles inferred that MEAA took active steps to obtain that information. These steps qualified as "information collection" in the judge's view, despite MEAA's claim that an anonymous source had provided them with the phone numbers without prompting. Justice Gyles felt that retaining the directory over an extended period was sufficient to establish an "active step", but this was ultimately moot as he recognized that the document came to MEAA prior to the start date of the relevant provisions in the Act. The specific date of MEAA receiving the list had no bearing however on the decision to issue the injunction. The injunction related specifically to the subsequent contraventions of the Act by the call centre operators who were working from a call script approved by MEAA.

This decision sets a significant precedent for other common law jurisdictions who are seeking to flesh out their own limited case law relating to privacy. It is worth noting that despite having collected information on MEAA's behalf, the call centre was not found to have breached any principles of the Act. Justice Gyles believed the data collection was accomplished as a legitimate part of their "functions and activities"(i.e. regular business practices), and it was their principal who should be liable for the methods employed to collect information.

For a copy of the decision:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2004/637.html