A pilot has been awarded damages and the right to details he sought about an informant who accused him of drinking before boarding an aircraft.
The New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been ordered to pay $19,000 in damages after it breached the pilot’s privacy during an investigation that turned out to be based on a false allegation.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal also found the informant did not use their real identity when lodging a concern with the CAA they had "seen the pilot drinking at a hotel before boarding a plane" in 2017.
The CAA must now provide the pilot with the information he sought about the informant, which was withheld during the investigation.
However, the tribunal accepted the opportunity to find the informant’s identity might now be lost.
The CAA said in a statement it acknowledged and accepted the decision it breached two principles of the Privacy Act relating to the accuracy and completeness of information disclosed.
It also found the CAA was entitled to disclose the safety concern to the relevant Australian aviation regulator because of the aviation safety obligations that applied at the time.
The decision marks a milestone in the years-long fight by the pilot at the centre of what he described earlier as "malicious" complaints he was "getting drunk" before a flight, and later, that he was seen at Brisbane Airport emerging from a toilet with a woman.
The alleged incident at Brisbane Airport was communicated anonymously to Virgin Australia, which it believed was vexatious.
It was reported in 2022 the pilot was fighting to have the person who made the claim about him drinking identified so he could bring a defamation lawsuit against them, but the CAA would not name them, claiming it would be a breach of privacy.
The tribunal — made up of specialist human rights lawyer Martha Coleman, Patsi Davies and Sandra Kai Fong — said the pilot’s privacy had been breached through the CAA disclosing an allegation it received about him to another party, without taking reasonable steps to ensure the information was accurate, complete and not misleading.
The tribunal also found the CAA had failed to provide him with all the personal information he was entitled to.
It must now provide him with unredacted versions of personal information from October 2017, plus an automated email sent to the informant immediately after the notice of concern was sent in August 2017.
The pilot, who at the time flew back and forth across the Tasman for Virgin Australia (NZ), said the complaints, which were quickly found to be false, caused him immense stress during the investigation by the CAA and its Australian counterpart, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
He put himself on sick leave because he did not consider it safe for him to fly.
The investigation followed the CAA receiving an "aviation-related concern" via an online portal in August 2017.
The informant alleged he and his wife had seen a Virgin Australia pilot drinking alcohol in a Wellington hotel and, a short time later, when they arrived at the terminal, they saw the same pilot operating a flight from Wellington to Brisbane.
The tribunal said the informant claimed the pilot was carrying a bag with his name on it.
The Australian aviation authority was notified and the next day the pilot was told information had been received from a member of the public that indicated he "may not meet the medical standards required for a pilot’s licence because he was suffering from problematic use of alcohol".
He was then directed to undertake a medical examination.
The pilot claimed disclosure of the concern to the Australian authority breached his privacy rights, in that the CAA "failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information passed to the CASA was complete, accurate and not misleading".
The pilot said in 2022 he was not given any information about when the incidents were supposed to have occurred and had to do his own research, even going so far as to source CCTV footage of the bar from the hotel.
That footage confirmed he had been at the bar to collect milk for his breakfast, and a geo-tracking app on his phone confirmed he was in a taxi on the way to the airport when, according to the complainant, he was "getting drunk at the bar".
The pilot said even though the investigation was kept confidential "Chinese whispers got around very quickly."
The tribunal found gaps in the CAA’s initial disclosure to its Australian counterpart, including inconsistencies in information gathered by the CAA’s principal medical officer about the informant’s name and email address, which did not match.
An email sent to the informant revealed the medical officer had sought to confirm their identity, and noted such allegations had "potentially major implications for someone’s career".
The informant replied a few hours later, confirming a time, date and location of the alleged incident, plus the flight number and that they were not a passenger on it.
The tribunal said a discontinued email address was not the only evidence the informant had not used their real identity.
There was also an incorrect phone number, the surname was spelt differently in the notice lodged from in their email address and there was a lack of any online profile.
The damages order consisted of $7000 for the loss of a benefit that he might reasonably have expected to have received but for the interference with his privacy and $12,000 for injury to feelings.
The CAA said its systems, processes and legislative framework had evolved significantly since the event.
• Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME.