CBL v Sydney Water Corporation

Case [2017] NSWCATAD 220


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2017] NSWCATAD 220
Hearing dates:25 November 2016
Date of orders: 06 June 2017
Decision date: 06 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Hennessy LCM, Deputy President
Decision:

The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – non-publication order
Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 64
Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW), s 22
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: CBL (Applicant)
Sydney Water Corporation (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
S Spargo (Corporate Compliance Manager Sydney Water Corporation) (Respondent)
B Atkinson (University Lawyer Southern Cross University) (third party)
File Number(s):2016/00378200
Publication restriction:See orders

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. On 6 June 2017, at CBL’s request, I made the following order:

The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited. This order is made under section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Note: A Reference to the name of person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.

  1. CBL has asked for written reasons for that decision.

  2. On 7 December 2016 I delivered a decision granting Southern Cross University’s application to appear and be heard in the proceedings but refusing their application to be joined as a party: CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2016] NSWCATAD 287. On 12 December 2016, a week after the decision was handed down, CBL lodged an application that his name be anonymised in these proceedings. No decision was made in relation to that application at the time.

  3. On 6 June 2016 the proceedings were dismissed because CBL had withdrawn the application. At the same time, CBL renewed his application for a non-publication order. Sydney Water Corporation did not oppose the application.

  4. Section 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) gives the Tribunal power to prohibit the publication of the name of any person if it is “satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason … “. As Sydney Water Corporation had no objection to CBL’s name being anonymised in the decision delivered on 7 December 2016, I made that order. I did not consider CBL’s reasons in support of that application given on 12 December 2016 that publication of the proceedings would reveal personal information about him and there is a statutory obligation as to confidentiality as set out in s 22 of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW).

Orders

  1. The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant in these proceedings is prohibited.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.


Registrar

Details
AGLC
CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2017] NSWCATAD 220
Case
[2017] NSWCATAD 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court was brought by CBL against the Sydney Water Corporation. The applicant sought to prevent the publication of their name in relation to the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was whether a non-publication order should be granted to the applicant, preventing the media and public from reporting on the applicant's identity in relation to the proceedings. The applicant argued that the publication of their name would cause them significant harm and distress, and that there was no public interest in reporting the identity of the applicant in this case.

The Court considered the principles established in previous cases, including the importance of open justice and the public's right to know, as well as the potential harm to the applicant if their identity was made public. The Court also considered the applicant's submissions and evidence, which demonstrated the significant personal and professional harm that would result from the publication of their name. The Court found that in this case, the potential harm to the applicant outweighed the public interest in reporting the applicant's identity. The Court therefore made a non-publication order, prohibiting the publication or broadcast of the applicant's name in relation to the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The publication or broadcast of the name of the applicant is prohibited.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.