Legal Research
Cases
Cannon v Griffiths & Ors (No 2)

Cannon v Griffiths & Ors (No 2)

Case [2015] NSWSC 1329 11 September 2015

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Injunction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cannon v Griffiths & Ors (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1329
Hearing dates: 29 July 2015
Date of orders: 11 September 2015
Decision date: 11 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(See [19])

Catchwords: SUPPRESSION ORDER – Court heard proceedings in camera – interim orders made under s 10 of Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 – necessary to revisit orders once proceedings determined – final suppression order necessary to preserve process of mediation and confidentiality of settlement – interim order vacated – limited suppression order made.
Legislation Cited: - Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 – s 10, s 11, s 12
- Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - s 50
Cases Cited: - Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish and Others [1980] FCA 33; 43 FLR 129
- Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1991] NSWCA 19; 22 NSWLR 1
- Cannon v Griffiths & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1055
- Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; 240 CLR 651
- Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
- Sharjade Pty Ltd v RAAF (Landings) Ex-Servicemen Charitable Fund Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1347
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Neil Cannon – Plaintiff
Paul Griffiths – First Defendant
Charif Khodr El Kanawati – Second Defendant
Nick Perry – Third Defendant
Hugh Dive – Fourth Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
S.E. McCarthy – Plaintiff
A.T.S. Dawson, Ms A Rao – Defendants
Solicitors:
Laxon Lex – Plaintiff
Herbert Smith Freehills – Defendants

File Number(s): 2014/213045

Judgment

On 29 July 2015 I heard a matter that had arisen out of a dispute over the taxation treatment of part of a settlement to this litigation that had been reached in a mediation. I made orders and gave reasons for those orders (Cannon v Griffiths & Ors [2015] NSWSC 1055; “Cannon (No 1)”). As a consequence of this judgment, those reasons will be publicly available on Caselaw with a few redactions. They explain the nature and background to the dispute.
The entire hearing of the proceedings and the reasons for judgment in Cannon (No 1) were subject to an interim order under s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (the “Act”) prohibiting the disclosure by publication or otherwise to any person other than the parties of the evidence and submissions in the proceedings and the reasons for judgment in Cannon (No 1). These orders were made because, in broad terms, the position of all sides to the litigation (including Citigroup Pty Ltd, “Citibank”) was that, even though they were in dispute over one aspect of their settlement, both wished to preserve the confidentiality of their settlement and the confidentiality that attached to the mediation. In those circumstances the rationale for the making of the interim orders and the position going forward was explained in Cannon (No 1) at [3] to [5] as follows:

“3 At the outset I record that since this…

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 Cannon v Griffiths & Ors (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Cannon v Griffiths (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1329
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1329
Decision Date: 11 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cannon v Griffiths & Ors (No 2), the plaintiff, Cannon, sought to maintain the confidentiality of the mediation process and settlement reached in a dispute against Griffiths and others. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing and potentially modifying the interim suppression orders that had been previously issued. The case centred around the need for a suppression order to safeguard the sensitive nature of the information and to ensure the integrity of the mediation process.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the existing interim suppression orders should be vacated and, if so, what form a final suppression order should take. The court needed to balance the public's right to know with the private interests of the parties involved in the mediation. It was crucial to determine if the interim orders were still necessary or if a modified, more limited suppression order could be put in place to achieve the desired level of confidentiality.

The court decided that, since the mediation process had concluded and the settlement was finalised, the interim suppression orders were no longer necessary in their entirety. The court recognised the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the mediation process and the settlement reached, and therefore, vacated the interim orders. In their place, the court issued a limited suppression order that was specifically tailored to protect the confidentiality of the settlement details while allowing for the disclosure of other relevant information. This decision ensured that the confidentiality of the mediation process was maintained without unduly restricting the public's right to information.

Orders