NEWS

When private isn’t really private

The recording of telephone conversations between businesses and their clients has become a common feature of modern business practice.  Of course, when the parties dispute the contents of these conversations, the recordings of these conversations can be very useful, probative, if not conclusive evidence  as to what was actually said.  However, the recording and use of these conversation may fall foul of various statutes which prohibit, without lawful excuse, the recording and use of the conversations for this purpose.1

The Tasmanian Criminal Court of Appeal recently considered the use of such a telephone recording and questioned whether such telephone calls actually constitute private communications.

In Dimech v Tasmania [2016] TASCCA 3,the Court was required to consider whether a telephone call with a betting agency operator constituted a private conversation for the purposes of the Listening Devices Act 1991 (Tas).   In deciding whether the conversation constituted a private conversation for the purposes of the Act, the Court accepted the view that the test is an objective test and held that the placing of a bet with a gambling telephone operator was not private; that is, objectively, such a conversation could not be considered as one where it would only be desired that the contents of the conversation were to be listened to by the operator and the caller.  This is even so in circumstances where the conversation contained private information.

The wording of most analog statutes dealing with the recording of telephone conversations is similar, if not identical to the Tasmanian Act.  Traditionally, in order to rely on such recordings, parties have sought to rely on consent to the recording, or other available grounds (such as protection of a lawful interest).

In circumstances where the terms of contracts, the taking out of policies of insurance, and other commercial arrangements are commonly arranged via recorded telephone conversations, this judgment may be useful support for litigants who seek to rely on the recordings of these telephone calls and avoid disputes as to whether appropriate consent was provided for the recording or a proper legal interest exists.  The judgment also shows that despite a conversation including private information, its purpose may not be considered private in the eyes of the law.



[1] For example, in NSW, see the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

Related News

What happens if you, as an insurer, have not yet concluded whether or not to indemnify an insured, and a third party commences Court proceedings against your insured (with the indemnity decision still pending)?

When these types of claims arise, an insurer (and its panel firm) can continue to act for an insured on a “reservation of rights” basis.

Read More

Can you sue if a “registered” company is “in liquidation”, “under administration” or has become “deregistered”? 

It is common to see Court proceedings commenced in the name of an individual or against an individual.   But sometimes, Court proceedings are commenced by

Read More

The Briginshaw-test

Did you know that the Briginshaw-test requires a higher standard of evidence in civil matters where serious allegations are made, such as fraud. This principle

Read More

Get in touch

Contact our team today

Stay informed

Keep up-to-date with our regular news and insights

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
William Roberts Lawyers

Sydney

Level 22
66 Goulburn Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Melbourne

Level 21
535 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Brisbane

Level 8
300 Ann Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000

Singapore

Level 19
Singapore Land Tower
50 Raffles Place
SINGAPORE 048623