In ‘DK’ and Telstra Corporation Limited [2014] AICmr 118 the Privacy Commissioner decided that Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) interfered with the complainant’s privacy by failing to take reasonable steps to provide notice to the complainant that it would use and disclose his personal information (full name, address and the phone line number) for the purpose of publishing it in the White Pages, in breach of National Privacy Principle (NPP) 1.3 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

Telstra was ordered to pay the complainant $18,000 for non-economic loss.

The complainant was a family law judge and the phone number was for a line which was part of an alarm system installed by the Federal Circuit Court as a security measure for him and his partner in light of the security implications of his work with the Court. The line was not for a functioning phone handset.

Telstra set up the phone line and published the complainant’s name, address and the number of the phone line in both the White Pages online and hard copy directory through its subsidiary Sensis Pty Ltd.

Although publication of customer information in the White Pages is a condition of Telstra meeting the conditions of its carrier licence, the Privacy Commissioner decided that there was a privacy breach as at the relevant time Telstra’s Privacy Statement did not specifically identify that the personal information it collects will be published in the White Pages.

Telstra subsequently amended its Privacy Statement to make specific reference to the publication of customer information in the White Pages and put processes in place which require sales consultants to notify each prospective customer of the option of taking out a silent line, which is an unlisted number.

In assessing non-economic damages the Privacy Commissioner said:

84.Telstra’s breach has had serious consequences for the complainant. The complainant has as a result of the breach suffered significant anxiety and distress including I believe a well-founded fear for his physical safety and that of his partner. The complainant has explained that Telstra’s breach has made it implausible for him to continue to reside at his current home. This is supported by the complainant’s application for an interstate transfer with his job, which I am satisfied, is a direct consequence of the actions of Telstra. …

88.There is no evidence before me to suggest that the disclosure was high-handed or malicious. While Telstra has refused to concede it breached the complainant’s privacy, its conduct has been conciliatory. I am therefore of the view that an award for aggravated damages is not justified.

Telstra was also ordered to apologise in writing to the complainant within 4 weeks of the determination.