Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) - [2025] ACTSC 119

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 119
Hearing Dates:	14, 18, 20, 25 March 2025
Decision Date:	27 March 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) Pages 1 to 312 of Exhibit BE 1 are admitted into evidence. (2) MFI A is admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. (3) Exhibit 3 is to be returned to the plaintiff. (4) The application in proceeding dated 13 March 2025 is dismissed. (5) The costs of the application are reserved. (6) Order 4 does not take effect until 4:00pm on 28 March 2025.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Interlocutory relief – where plaintiff sought to restrain Integrity Commission from publishing proposed second report in Operation Luna – serious question to be tried – where, due to existing publication of first report, any harm by publication of proposed second report would merely be additional to that occasioned by first report – where injunction would impede the Commission’s important public function proximate to the centre of government – where the subject-matter of substantive proceedings relate to first, not second, report – interlocutory injunction not granted PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Availability of interlocutory relief where the subject-matter of an injunction (a report) could be subject to change – argument by defendant that injunctive relief inappropriate where the contents of the proposed second report may change – in the circumstances, the probability of a relevant change was low – not a basis to decline interlocutory relief EVIDENCE – PRIVILEGE – Parliamentary privilege – where claim for interlocutory relief relates to unpublished proposed second report of Integrity Commission – where claim for final relief in the same proceedings relates to published first report – where reports potentially subject to parliamentary privilege – parliamentary privilege issue to be determined after final hearing – first and proposed second reports admitted into evidence to assess whether there is a serious question to be tried and the relationship between the content of the first and second reports – such a course not contrary to Art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688
Legislation Cited:	Australian Capital Territory (Self‑Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 24(3) Bill of Rights 1688 1 Wm & M sess 2, c 2, Art 9 Financial Management Act 1996 (ACT), ss 84, 101 Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT), ss 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(a)(iii), 9(1)(b)(i), 9(1)(b)(ii) 10, 21, 25, 198, 212, 212A, 213, 214 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), ss 16(2), 16(3)
Cases Cited:	Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover [2024] ACTSC 197 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v MZAPC [2025] HCA 5 Tait v The Queen (1962) 108 CLR 620
Texts Cited:	ACT Integrity Commission, Special Report – Operation Luna (Part 1) (27 June 2024)
Parties:	Leanne Cover ( Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel IJ King (Plaintiff) B Kaplan (Defendant)
Solicitors Mills Oakley (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant)
File…

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 Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 119
Case: [2025] ACTSC 119
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The ACT Integrity Commission was sued by Cover for an interlocutory injunction to restrain it from publishing a proposed second report from its investigation, Operation Luna. This followed the publication of an initial report. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the appropriateness of the injunction. The central legal issues involved whether an interlocutory injunction was warranted, considering the risk of additional harm from the publication of the second report, given that the first report had already been released. Additionally, the court considered whether the potential for the second report's content to change precluded interlocutory relief, as well as the implications of parliamentary privilege on the admissibility of the reports into evidence.

The court held that an interlocutory injunction would not be granted. It reasoned that the publication of the second report would cause additional harm, but this harm was incremental to that already caused by the first report. Furthermore, the injunction would impede the Commission's crucial public function, which is closely tied to the central government. The substantive proceedings related to the first report, not the second, which diminished the likelihood that an injunction was necessary at the interlocutory stage. The court also noted that while the second report's contents could change, the likelihood of a significant alteration was low. Consequently, this was not a valid reason to withhold interlocutory relief. The court found that admitting the reports into evidence for assessing the existence of a serious question to be tried and the relationship between the two reports did not contravene Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, as parliamentary privilege would be determined at the final hearing.

The court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction, reserving the costs of the application. It ordered specific pages of an exhibit to be admitted into evidence, as well as another exhibit to be returned to the plaintiff. The dismissal of the application took effect at a specified time, ensuring that the decision was implemented within a defined timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pages 1 to 312 of Exhibit BE 1 are admitted into evidence.

(2) MFI A is admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3.

(3) Exhibit 3 is to be returned to the plaintiff.

(4) The application in proceeding dated 13 March 2025 is dismissed.

(5) The costs of the application are reserved.

(6) Order 4 does not take effect until 4:00pm on 28 March 2025.

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.