Further to yesterday’s article “Ill worker seeks damages against sacked former NSW finance minister for breach of privacy” it has come to our attention that The Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s most interesting decision is formally on the record: AQO v Gregory Pearce MLC  NSWCATAD 210.
Ill worker to sue Greg Pearce for breach of privacy
Whilst The Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s decision implies that the “ill worker”, referred to as AQO, is basically “out to get monetary compensation” (in other words that the matter is about money only) for the privacy breach, we doubt that this is the case.
In fact we believe that:
- The ‘ill worker’ whose privacy was (in our opinion clearly) breached by disgraced ex Finance Minister Greg Pearce surely would like to know how this breach has in fact occurred and what they (Pearce and the ill workers’ workcover insurer / workcover NSW) actually told each other. This could potentially show how they/or that they intentionally misled parliament; and
- We believe that, like us, the ‘ill worker’ would, understandably, also believe that this breach of privacy occurred as ‘retribution’ on the part of Pearce’s office, and /or perhaps the ill worker’s workcover insurer, for actually writing to ex NSW Prime Minister Barry O’Farrell merely to offer and suggest ideas on how to improve the NSW Workcover scheme/system. Suggestions for improvement could have included what other injured workers put forward such as training workcover insurer employees (eg case managers), give Workcover NSW powers to sanction action of their insurers, auditing the defendant solicitors for running unnecessary cases; and -for example- introducing punitive damages to act as a disincentive to workcver insurers.
We certainly would like to know how this privacy breach has occurred. Surely the ‘ill worker’s’ own workcover insurer (or the workcover authority in NSW) must have passed on such highly detailed information to Pearce’s office?! How else is it possible for Pearce to know and to publicly publish such intricate (but in our opinion exaggerated) details of this ‘ill worker’s’ workcover claim?
What was the motive for the ‘ill worker’s’ workcover insurer to disclose such private details of his/her workcover claim? And, most imporantly, what was the motive for Pearce to publicly publish (a twisted) version of this poor ‘ill worker’s’ workcover claim/medical history?
What are your thoughts?
We sincerely hope that the ‘ill worker’ (aka AQO) and his/her lawyers will succeed in the matter and that a Part 2 of The Decision will be made available, so that we can all gain some insight on what is actually happening behind workcover insurer’s and politicians behind closed doors!
You can read The Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s decision here: AQO v Gregory Pearce MLC  NSWCATAD 210.