Ashton v Pratt (No 2)

[2013] NSWCA 448

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:

Ashton v Pratt (No 2)

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2013] NSWCA 448

Hearing Date(s):

12 December 2013

Decision Date:

12 December 2013

Before:

McColl JA

Decision:

Application for non-publication order in relation to the names of the second and third respondents refused.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

COURTS - practice - non-publication order - no question of principle

Cases Cited:

Ashton v Pratt [2013] NSWCA 400

Texts Cited:

Practice Note SC Gen 2

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Madison Ashton - Appellant
Jeanne Pratt - First Respondent
Indra Heslop-Blochowiak and Xavier Conor Heslop-Kelly by their tutor Liam Kelly - Second and Third Respondents

Representation

- Counsel:

G O'L Reynolds SC with R K Newton - Appellant
M Henry SC - First Respondent
J C Hewitt - Second and Third Respondents

- Solicitors:

David Legal - Appellant
Arnold Bloch Leibler - First Respondent
Beazley Singleton Lawyers - Second and Third Respondents

File Number(s):

SC 2012/42742

Decision Under Appeal

- Before:

Brereton J

- Date of Decision: 

16 January 2012

- Citation:

Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3

- Court File Number(s):

SC 2010/56518

Publication Restriction:

No

JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: Subsequent to the publication of the Court's reasons for making its orders on 18 November 2013 (Ashton v Pratt [2013] NSWCA 400), the Court received an application from members of the media for access to the statement of facts and contentions of the second and third respondents and the evidence relied upon by the second and third respondents. Having regard to the fact that the Court's orders contemplated that further documents should be brought into existence in response to that statement of facts and contentions, I took the view that it was not appropriate to accede to the media request until all documents had been provided in compliance with those orders. This was to ensure that should any publication be made by the media, all material would be available to it in the hope that a balanced report would be published.

2. Once the process of complying with the 18 November timetable had been achieved I sought the parties' attitude as to whether those documents could be released to the media, meaning the documents referred to in the 18 November orders, as well as the responses to those documents. The appellant and the first respondent advised that they did not object to those documents being released to the media. The second and third respondents submit that, if they are to be released, an order that their names should not be published should be made.

3. The second and third…