Proceedings brought against the Legal Aid Commissioner of NSW and the Inner City Legal Centre over alleged privacy breaches were dismissed for being “frivolous or vexatious”.
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal principal member Dr Juliet Lucy dismissed proceedings brought by a man who alleged the Legal Aid Commissioner and a legal service breached his privacy and engaged in acts of retaliation because of previous complaints.
Lucy found the proceedings to be “frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance”.
The tribunal also removed the Homeless Persons Legal Service and the Privacy Commissioner on the basis they were “improperly or unnecessarily joined and were not proper parties to the proceeding”.
In early 2020, the man made a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner claiming Legal Aid NSW breached his privacy, but no such breach was found in relation to most of his claims. A remaining claim was unable to secure a determinative finding.
He also alleged that between January and December 2020, the Homeless Persons Legal Service, the Inner City Legal Centre, and Legal Aid NSW disclosed and shared private information without consent.
Four years later, the man contacted the Homeless Persons Legal Service for assistance, but was told by the managing lawyer that they were ethically constrained from acting for him due to the complaint.
The man followed this up with an unsuccessful complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner, which dismissed it for being “vexatious, misconceived, frivolous or lacking in substance”.
An attempt to review this in the tribunal was dismissed.
Last October, the man made a separate application to the tribunal for review of both the Legal Services Commissioner’s decision and the Information and Privacy Commission’s decision.
He alleged they “have acted contrary to, or failed to comply with, the commissioner’s privacy findings by punishing and excluding me from access to their services, also unlawfully surveillanced [sic]”.
Lucy said the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review and determine the Legal Services Commissioner’s decision because she was not satisfied the man had applied for an internal review.
As for the Inner City Legal Centre, Lucy said it was not a public sector agency. Even if the man had applied for an internal review of its conduct, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review it.
“As the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear or determine [the man’s] application, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application … on the basis that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or otherwise misconceived or lacking in substance,” she said.
