Case Notes

(AAB Appeal No. 13 of 2024)

Jurisdiction of AAB – Specified investigation – Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance (Cap. 442) (“Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance”)

Coram:
Ms LAU Queenie Fiona, SC (Deputy Chairman)
Ir. Jason CHEUNG King-wai (Member)
Prof. HUI kai-wai (Member)

Date of Decision: 18 March 2025

The Complaint

The Appellant lodged a doxxing complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner commenced specified investigation pursuant to section 66C of the PDPO but eventually terminated the investigation due to insufficient evidence, and informed the Appellant of the result by way of a letter pursuant to section 66S of the PDPO. The Appellant appealed against the Privacy Commissioner’s decision. The Privacy Commissioner challenged the AAB’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Appeal

In ruling on the issue of jurisdiction, the AAB agreed with the Privacy Commissioner’s submissions that the AAB does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal for the following reasons:-

1. The AAB was established in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance. Its jurisdiction is limited to the decisions listed in the schedule to the Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance and any other decision in respect of which an appeal lies to the AAB. However, the decision relating to section 66S of the PDPO regarding the obligation of the Privacy Commissioner to inform the complainant of the result of the specified investigation does not fall under the said schedule;
2. While AAB is an institution responsible for handling appeals concerning administrative decisions, the decision relating to section 66S of the PDPO is not an administrative decision.

The AAB’s Decision

Since the AAB does not have the statutory authority to hear the appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

(Uploaded in May 2025)