Appleroth v Ferrari Australasia Pty Limited (No 2)

Appleroth v Ferrari Australasia Pty Limited (No 2) involves an interlocutory application by two individuals who are interested parties to a substantive proceeding. The application was made to the Federal Court of Australia and sought orders under section 37AG(1)(c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The applicants sought the confidentiality of evidence filed in support of their application and the prohibition of publication of information that might identify them. The applicants argued that the publication of such information would put them at risk of personal and professional harm, and this risk outweighed the principles of open justice.

The court was required to balance the applicants' right to confidentiality and protection from personal and professional harm against the open justice principle. The court examined the evidence presented by the applicants to determine if the risk of harm was sufficiently serious to warrant the extraordinary measure of prohibiting publication. The court also considered the impact of the publication on the open justice principle and whether the publication would serve the public interest.

The court allowed the application in part, prohibiting the publication of information that identifies or tends to identify the applicants until a specified date. The court marked the affidavit of one of the applicants as confidential and restricted access to it. However, the court dismissed the application for the confidentiality of the other applicant's evidence, finding that the risk of harm was not sufficiently serious to warrant such a measure. The court also dismissed the application for the prohibition of publication of information that might identify the applicants as connected to the substantive proceeding, finding that the open justice principle outweighed the risk of harm to the applicants.

The court made orders prohibiting the publication of information that identifies or tends to identify the applicants until a specified date. The court also made orders marking the affidavit of one of the applicants as confidential and restricting access to it. The court dismissed the application for the confidentiality of the other applicant's evidence and for the prohibition of publication of information that might identify the applicants as connected to the substantive proceeding.