Cargill Australia Ltd v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd (No 21)

Cargill Australia Ltd and Viterra Malt Pty Ltd were involved in litigation where Cargill sought a confidentiality order for expert opinion evidence. Viterra opposed the application, arguing that the evidence contained the names of non-party individuals and their conduct, which should not be withheld from disclosure under the principle of open justice. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified withholding the names of non-parties from disclosure and whether the administration of justice would be served by such an order. The key issue was balancing the principle of open justice and the potential prejudice that could result from disclosing the names and conduct of non-parties, as per the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).

The court found that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted the use of pseudonyms for the non-parties involved. The court considered the potential prejudice to the non-parties if their names and conduct were disclosed, and concluded that the administration of justice would be better served by withholding the names. The court balanced the competing interests and determined that the use of pseudonyms was appropriate to prevent any potential prejudice to the non-parties, while still allowing the expert opinion evidence to be considered in the proceedings.

The court granted the application for a confidentiality order, allowing the use of pseudonyms for the non-parties in the expert opinion evidence. The names and conduct of the non-parties would remain confidential, subject to the terms of the confidentiality order.