FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – order under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether order should continue – application of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 (Cth) and Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) – material supplied subject to obligations of confidentiality – where Court has no power to order production – whether access to evidence on the Court file should be granted to media organisations – whether evidence admitted in Court
Held: The order under s 50 should continue in a more limited form. Access should be granted to all documents admitted into evidence to which the s 50 order does not apply.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50
Federal Court Rules O 46 r 6Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish and Ors (1980) 43 FLR 129 referred to
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 3) (2002) ATPR 41-873 referred to
Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 referred to
eisa Ltd v Brady and Ors [2000] NSWSC 929 distinguished
Llewellyn v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 836 referred to
Macquarie Radio Network Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2002] FCA 1408 referred to
Seven Network Ltd and Anor v News Ltd and Ors (No 2) (2005) 148 FCR 1 referred toWARWICK JAMES CHURCHE v AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
NSD 2471 OF 2005COWDROY J
8 SEPTEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2471 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
WARWICK JAMES CHURCHE
ApplicantAND:
AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
Respondent
JUDGE:
COWDROY J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 SEPTEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave to intervene be granted to Zurich Financial Service Australia Limited and Zurich Australian Insurance Limited in relation to the issues of the continuation of the s 50 order and the grant of access to the file.
2.The documents or portions of documents referred to in Schedule 1 to these orders be restrained from publication pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
3.Leave be granted to The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review to access those file documents or portions of file documents referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to these orders.
4.Leave be granted to the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review to access any of those documents which are referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to these orders following their admission into evidence in these proceedings.
5.The above orders will not take effect until 4 pm on Tuesday 12 September 2006.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
SCHEDULE 1
Documents to which s 50 order applies
Documents
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FCA 1168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered APRA’s arguments, which included the potential breach of confidentiality obligations, the possibility of harming third parties, and the disclosure of investigative processes. APRA presented six reasons for the continuation of the order, including the non-admission of certain documents into evidence, information that would be an offence to disclose, documents supplied under non-disclosure conditions, duty of confidentiality, potential damage to third-party reputations, and the need to protect investigative processes. The court examined these arguments in light of the balancing test outlined in previous case law, which requires consideration of the need to prevent prejudice against the principles of open justice. Ultimately, the court found that the potential prejudice to the administration of justice, as argued by APRA, warranted the continuation of the order, albeit with some modifications to allow certain media outlets access to specific documents under controlled conditions.
The orders of the court granted leave to intervene to Zurich Financial Service Australia Limited and Zurich Australian Insurance Limited concerning the continuation of the order and access to the file. The court also restrained the publication of certain documents or portions thereof to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. Additionally, leave was granted to The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Australian Financial Review to access specific documents under controlled conditions. The orders were to take effect from 4 pm on Tuesday, 12 September 2006.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to intervene be granted to Zurich Financial Service Australia Limited and Zurich Australian Insurance Limited in relation to the issues of the continuation of the s 50 order and the grant of access to the file.
2. The documents or portions of documents referred to in Schedule 1 to these orders be restrained from publication pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
3. Leave be granted to The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review to access those file documents or portions of file documents referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to these orders.
4. Leave be granted to the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review to access any of those documents which are referred to in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to these orders following their admission into evidence in these proceedings.
5. The above orders will not take effect until 4 pm on Tuesday 12 September 2006.
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
Established by: COWDROY J
Section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides:‘The Court may, at any time during or after the hearing of a proceeding in the Court, make such order forbidding or restricting the publication of particular evidence, or the name of a party or witness, as appears to the Court to be necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or the security of the Commonwealth.’SECTION 50 CONSIDERATION In Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish and Ors (1980) 43 FLR 129 Bowen CJ stated at 132-3: ‘Under s 50 an order may be made forbidding or restricting the publication of particular evidence or the name of a party or witness where it appears to the court “to be necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or the security of the Commonwealth”. Again, we are familiar with cases where an order forbidding or restricting publication is appropriate. Thus, where the proceedings concern a secret process and publication of the process would destroy the subject matter of the proceedings and render them nugatory, an order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. Where proceedings are brought to restrain publication of confidential material, similar considerations apply. Disclosure would prejudice the court’s proper exercise of the function it was appointed to discharge, to do justice between the parties. The possible cases where an order may be necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice range fairly widely. The categories of this public interest are not closed and must alter from time to time whether by restriction or extension as social conditions and legislation develop (see D. v National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children [[1978] AC 171 at 230] per Lord Hailsham; Science Research Council v Nassé [[1979] 3 WLR 762 at 784] per Lord Fraser …’ Bowen CJ added (at 133) that ‘Open justice is the underlying assumption of s 50 …’. Deane J observed at 158:‘The decision whether an order under s 50 should be made will be the outcome of a balancing process in respect of which there will commonly be room for differences of opinion as to the weight to be attached to particular factors to be placed in the balance and, in the result, as to the precise outcome of the process itself.’ The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (‘APRA’) has provided six reasons in support of the continuation of order 8 and denial of access under O 46 r 6(3) of the Federal Court Rules. Firstly, it says that certain documents have not been admitted into evidence. Secondly, it says that certain documents contain information which it would be an offence to disclose under s 56(2) of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 (Cth) (‘APRA Act’). Thirdly, it says that certain documents were supplied to the applicant subject to non-disclosure conditions under s 56(5)(b) of the APRA Act. Fourthly, it says certain documents are subject to a duty of confidentiality pursuant to s 60 of the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). Fifthly, it says that certain documents contain information about third parties, the disclosure of which may damage reputations or result in a denial of procedural fairness by APRA. Sixthly, it says that certain documents disclose the investigative processes of APRA.