Man turns to human rights tribunal in fight for brothel to release information on him

The man made a privacy information request of the Pelican Club on Newton Rd in Auckland. Photo / Sarah Ivey

A man who turned to a human rights authority after a brothel failed to release information held about him has run out of time to progress his case.

The man - who NZME is not naming - made a privacy information request of Auckland’s “Pelican Club” in May last year.

However the gentleman’s club, massage parlour, and escort agency didn’t respond within the mandated 20 working days so he took the matter to the Privacy Commissioner.

It is not known why the man wanted the information or the nature of the information the club might hold about him. When approached for comment, the man initially threatened legal action. He later considered questions sent to him by NZME but did not respond before the given deadline. The Pelican Club said it couldn’t comment on the case.

Under the Privacy Act 2020, any individual can request information that any organisation holds about them - whether it’s the police, the Ministry of Health or an insurance broker.

If the organisation does not comply with the request then an individual can take the matter to the commissioner who can then choose whether or not to investigate.

In this case, the commissioner chose not to investigate further which meant the man could take his complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal as long as he filed within six months.

However, he missed his deadline by six days and applied to extend the timeline so he could still progress a case through the tribunal.

The tribunal can do this in “exceptional circumstances”.

The man’s reason for seeking an extension was that the Pelican Club had not responded to his privacy request until eight months after it was made.

And he said he’d made extensive efforts to resolve the issue outside of the tribunal and was away in the United States for work at several points during the year.

He was required to submit an affidavit to support his application to which he replied: “To be honest I can’t really be bothered complying with your overly bureaucratic process – this has been hard enough already.

“I question why you need an affidavit. If I was going to lie and fabricate evidence why would having a JP watching me do it deter me?

“A few facts for you – I was six days late on an arbitrary six-month deadline. The defendant was eight months late on a legal requirement to reply in 20 days.

“I really don’t think much more needs to be said on the need for review of this case and the negligent disregard for the law that the Pelican Club has shown … which breaches my rights under the Privacy Act.”

The tribunal found that despite the man’s efforts to resolve the claim there was no exceptional basis for him to seek an extension.

“None of the reasons advanced are exceptional circumstances which could be considered to have prevented him from commencing proceedings within the six-month statutory time period.”