Evidence suggested the University of Otago did not have ‘‘proper systems in place'' to deal adequately with a request by a university employee for information held about her, under the Privacy Act.
That submission was made yesterday by lawyer Andrew Beck on behalf of the employee, psychiatrist Dr Lisa Turner, on the second day of a resumed hearing of the Human Rights Review Tribunal in Dunedin.
The Employment Relations Authority awarded Dr Turner $8717 in June last year, and ruled she had been unfairly dismissed from her professional practice fellow position at the university's department of psychological medicine.
The review tribunal hearing is considering claims by her that the university withheld information about her in a way that was damaging in several respects, including emotionally, and in terms of aspects of her employment interests.
Mr Beck said previous cases had shown that simply because a public institution was a large one, it could not ‘‘rely on size as an excuse'' for failure to comply with legal requirements under the Act.
In fact, there was a ‘‘greater obligation'' on such institutions to have ‘‘proper systems in place'' to ensure that such requests were adequately dealt with.
The evidence suggested that, in respect of Dr Turner, such systems were ‘‘completely lacking at the university'', Mr Beck said.
The university needed to be able to state, in a timely manner, what information was held, then to provide it.
And if any information, including a specific document, was being withheld, there was a requirement to advise on what specific grounds this decision had been taken.
And any failure to do so was ‘‘simply inadequate'', he said.
Dr Turner is seeking compensation for the claimed breaches, and Mr Beck said exemplary damages were also sought.
Mr Beck and Warren Forster appeared for the plaintiff.
Yesterday's hearing was before tribunal chairman Rodger Haines QC and members Gillian Goodwin and Deborah Hart.
Mr Haines queried the suggestion that exemplary damages could be awarded in such cases, and said the main focus was generally considered to be on compensation rather than punishment.
But Mr Haines noted that a defendant's overall response, in respect of privacy requirements, and the extent of adverse effects on a plaintiff could potentially be taken into account in other ways.
Mr Beck said Dr Turner was not given ‘‘timely access'' to some of the information she had sought, and had accordingly been disadvantaged.
She had also experienced ‘‘stress'' and other harm through the withholding of some information she was entitled to under the Act.
In evidence given on Monday, university human resources director Kevin Seales emphasised that the university took seriously its legal obligations over the Privacy Act, and went to considerable lengths to comply with them.
But some of Dr Turner's information requests had been ‘‘vague'' and hard to comply with for a large organisation, Mr Seales had said.
A review tribunal hearing began in October last year, but was adjourned part-heard, before resuming this week.
In a decision given last month, the tribunal said the university had relied on a section of the Privacy Act linked to protecting ‘‘professional legal privilege'', in withholding 75 documents from Dr Turner, which she had sought.
She was now challenging this decision.
Barry Dorking and Malcolm Couling appeared for the university yesterday.
The university will make its closing submissions today, including over the ‘‘professional legal privilege'' matter.
The hearing is also expected to end today.
