FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Conway v Fernandez (No 2) [2018] FCA 1975
File number: VID 1536 of 2018 Judge: WHEELAHAN J Date of judgment: 7 December 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to inspect documents in the proceeding – affidavits acted upon in hearing in open court – leave given. Legislation: Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 164(4)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 17(1), 37AE, 37AG(1), 37AH(1)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.32
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Parish (1980) 29 ALR 228
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cascade Coal (No 1) [2015] FCA 607
Baptist Union of Queensland v Roberts (2015) 332 ALR 79Brown v Health Services Union (No 4) [2012] FCA 1376
Chen v Migration Agents Registration Authority (No 1) [2016] FCA 649
Conway v Fernandez [2018] FCA 1949
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hawkins (2016) 341 ALR 255
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (2015) 241 FCR 397
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 9) (2005) 148 FLR 1
Solahart Industries Pty Ltd v Solar Shop Pty Ltd (2011) 281 ALR 544
Van Stokkum v Finance Brokers Supervisory Board [2002] WASC 192
Date of hearing: 6 December 2018 Registry: Victoria Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 28 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Y. Bakri Solicitor for the Applicant: Davies Lawyers Pty Ltd Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr A Slevin Solicitor for the First Respondent: Segelov Taylor
Counsel for the Fifth and Seventh Respondents: Mr M Harding Solicitor for the Fifth and Seventh Respondents: Slater and Gordon ORDERS
VID 1536 of 2018 BETWEEN: PAUL CONWAY
Applicant
AND: PATRICIA FERNANDEZ
First Respondent
GRAHAM SMITH
Second Respondent
MATT JOURNEAX (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
WHEELAHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 DECEMBER 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to rule 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), David Marin-Guzman, journalist of The Australian Financial Review, have leave to inspect the following documents –
(a)affidavit of Paul Conway affirmed 30 November 2018;
(b)affidavit of Antonia Sakkas affirmed 3 December 2018;
(c)second affidavit of Antonia Sakkas affirmed 3 December 2018.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHEELAHAN J:
On Tuesday 4 December 2018, I made interlocutory orders in this proceeding following the hearing of an application for interim relief under s 164(4) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (RO Act): Conway v Fernandez [2018] FCA 1949. The hearing had taken place the previous afternoon, Monday 3 December 2018. Only the applicant and the first respondent had appeared upon that application.
On 5 December 2018, a…
Continue reading Conway v Fernandez (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Conway v Fernandez (No 2) [2018] FCA 1975
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1975
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to inspect specific affidavits that had been filed in the proceeding. The applicant argued that the inspection of these documents was necessary for the proper conduct of his journalistic work. The court had to consider the balance between the public interest in transparency and the privacy rights of the parties involved, as well as the relevance of the documents to the applicant's work.
The court determined that the public interest in transparency and the applicant's need to inspect the documents for journalistic purposes outweighed the privacy interests of the parties. The affidavits in question were relevant to matters of significant public interest and the applicant had demonstrated a legitimate need to inspect them. Therefore, the court granted the applicant leave to inspect the affidavits of Paul Conway, Antonia Sakkas, and her second affidavit. The decision underscored the importance of press freedom and the role of the courts in facilitating access to information where it serves the public interest.
The final orders of the court allowed David Marin-Guzman to inspect the specified affidavits, as per the provisions of rule 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The entry of these orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the same rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to rule 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), David Marin-Guzman, journalist of The Australian Financial Review, have leave to inspect the following documents –
(a) affidavit of Paul Conway affirmed 30 November 2018;
(b) affidavit of Antonia Sakkas affirmed 3 December 2018;
(c) second affidavit of Antonia Sakkas affirmed 3 December 2018.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.