Australian Gift and Homewares Association Ltd v Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust (Ruling No 1)

The Australian Gift and Homewares Association Ltd (AGHA) filed a summons against the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust, seeking to prevent the disclosure of the identity of an informant who provided crucial evidence in their case. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The core legal issues revolved around whether the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) applied to the orders sought by AGHA and the admissibility of the hearsay evidence provided by the informant. Specifically, the defendants contested the admissibility of the telephone call and email evidence on the grounds that they were hearsay, and AGHA relied on sections 75 and 60 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and rules 43.03 and 32.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The defendants argued that these provisions required the disclosure of the source of the hearsay evidence, which they believed rendered the evidence inadmissible unless the informant's identity was revealed.

The court found that the orders sought by AGHA to maintain the informant's identity confidential were not governed by the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic). It dismissed the defendants' argument that such orders would constitute either a suppression order or a closed court order under the Act. AGHA argued that section 7 of the Act provided authority for their position that the Act was not intended to govern orders of this kind. The court agreed with AGHA, referencing the Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Guina Developments Pty Ltd case, which held that confidential documents should not be disclosed through discovery in certain circumstances, particularly where the parties are commercial rivals and the information is commercially sensitive. The court concluded that in such cases, confidentiality orders could be justified to prevent the potential misuse of sensitive information.

In summary, the court ruled that the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) did not apply to the confidentiality orders sought by AGHA. The court further determined that the hearsay evidence provided by the informant was admissible under the exceptions provided by sections 75 and 60 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The defendants' application to disclose the informant's identity was denied, and the court upheld the confidentiality of the informant as justified under the circumstances.