REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
YATES J:
Introduction
1 These reasons concern three questions before me for determination, specifically:
- (a) Should the name of the respondent be changed?
- (b) Should the applicant's identity as a party be suppressed?
- (c) Should a costs-capping order be made?
2 Before dealing with each question, it is necessary for me to recount the following procedural history.
Background
3 The proceeding was commenced by the filing of an originating application for judicial review (the originating application) under r 31.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) on 8 August 2024 seeking relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) in respect of a decision:
- (a) under s 41(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act) that the act or practice about which the applicant had complained under s 36 thereof (the complaint) was not an interference with her privacy; and
- (b) under s 41(1)(da) of the Privacy Act that an investigation of the act or practice was not warranted having regard to all the circumstances.
4 The applicant commenced this proceeding against the respondent named as "Office of the Australian Information Commissioner".
5 Prestige Motors (North Shore) Pty Ltd, trading as North Shore BMW (BMW North Shore) had, apparently, serviced the applicant's motor vehicle for a few years. Her complaint under s 36 of the Privacy Act was that BMW North Shore had interfered with her privacy by failing to provide her with access to an original service record of 15 May 2017 (the service record). In coming to the decisions under review, the decision-maker accepted BMW North Shore's claim that the service record does not exist.
6 The proceeding was allocated to my docket on 13 August 2024. On 20 August 2024, I made an order that the proceeding be listed for a first case management hearing on 2 September 2024.
