Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 2)

The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd involved an application by ASIC for interim preservation orders and the appointment of receivers in relation to various persons and companies associated with the Westpoint Property and Finance Group of Companies. The application was brought ex parte, with affidavits sworn by various ASIC officers and receivers. The substantive hearing for the appointment of receivers was scheduled for 12 April 2006. Several media organisations sought leave to inspect the affidavits filed in the ex parte proceedings, which was opposed by the defendants. The central legal issue before the court was whether the principle of open justice, which allows public access to court proceedings, should prevail over the defendants' objections to media access to the affidavits.

The court held that the principle of open justice should be upheld in this case, allowing the media to inspect the affidavits. The defendants argued that there were speculative risks associated with the media access, but the court found these objections to be insufficient to override the principle of open justice. The court emphasised the importance of transparency in legal proceedings and the public's right to be informed about significant legal matters, especially those involving potential financial misconduct. The defendants' concerns about privacy and potential prejudice were deemed insufficient to outweigh the public interest in open justice.

The court granted the media organisations leave to inspect the affidavits of Richard Warren Gomm, Oran Zohar, Kevin Chin, and Marcus Essex Claridge. This decision ensured that the proceedings remained transparent and that the public could be informed about the interim measures taken by ASIC in relation to the defendants. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of open justice in the legal system and highlighted the need for balance between the rights of defendants and the public's right to information.