A1 v B (pseudonyms) (Ruling No 1) - [2025] VSC 435

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI (redacted)

A1 (a pseudonym)	First Plaintiff
and
A2 (a pseudonym)	Second Plaintiff
v
B (a pseudonym) & ORS (redacted)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	DELANY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	A1 v B (pseudonyms) (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 435

---

OPEN COURTS — Application for proceeding suppression order without notice — Application for closed Court order — Application to transfer proceeding to Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and related applications — Orders by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia permitting reference to documents filed and information concerning proceedings in that Court on the hearing of the transfer and related applications in this Court — Appropriate to make suppression order without notice and closed Court order in respect of the application to transfer and related applications — Statement of reasons may be provided adopting pseudonyms and other restrictions without rendering the suppression order ineffective — Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) ss 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 69(1) — Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 114Q(2)(a)‑(b), 114R(2)(b)(i) — Napier v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd [2020] VSC 765; Re WD (No 2) (2023) 72 VR 589; [2023] VSC 790, applied; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465, referred to.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Construction of ss 8(1A) and (3) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) — Interaction with s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) where orders made pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — Suppression order made with carve out concerning operative provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — Re WD (No 2) (2023) 72 VR 589; [2023] VSC 790, referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Not to be disclosed	Not to be disclosed
For the Defendants	Not to be disclosed	Not to be disclosed

HIS HONOUR:

By paragraph 3 of the summons dated 12 June 2025, the first defendant, to whom for confidentiality reasons I will refer to as B, seeks the following orders:

Pursuant to sections 17 and 20 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), Rule 28.05(4) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) or alternatively the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:
a.any documents filed in connection with this summons, including affidavits, exhibits to affidavits and written submissions, be confidential and held on the Court file on that basis until further order; and
b.the publication of any information concerning this summons or alternatively the publication of the names of the parties to this summons or any information which might be expected to enable such identification, be prohibited until further order of the Court.

The hearing of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A1 v B (pseudonyms) (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: A1 v B (pseudonyms) (Ruling No 1) [2025] VSC 435
Case: [2025] VSC 435
Decision Date: 18 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, a matter was brought before the court concerning an application for a suppression order without notice, a closed court order, and the transfer of proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The application was made in the context of family law proceedings, where the parties, identified by pseudonyms, sought specific orders to manage the disclosure and publication of information. The court was required to determine the appropriate application of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) in relation to the suppression and closed court orders, as well as the transfer of proceedings and related applications.

The central legal issues involved the interpretation and application of sections 8(1A) and (3) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) in conjunction with section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The applicant sought a suppression order that would prevent the publication of sensitive information without notice to the parties, as well as a closed court order to prevent the dissemination of information from the proceedings. Additionally, the applicant requested the transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and related applications. The court needed to balance the principles of open justice with the protection of sensitive information in family law matters.

The court found that it was appropriate to make the suppression and closed court orders concerning the application to transfer and related applications. The court also determined that a statement of reasons could be provided that adopts pseudonyms and other restrictions without rendering the suppression order ineffective. The court considered the principles of open justice and the specific circumstances of the case, including the need to protect sensitive information in family law proceedings. The orders permitted the reference to documents filed and information concerning proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family and Family Court of Australia on the hearing of the transfer and related applications in the Supreme Court.

The final orders included the granting of the suppression order without notice and the closed court order in respect of the application to transfer and related applications. The court also allowed the transfer of proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, with specific conditions to manage the disclosure and publication of information. The court's decision was based on the careful consideration of the relevant statutes and the need to balance the rights of the parties with the public interest in open justice.

Orders