Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: CVV v United Resource Management Pty Ltd (URM) [2016] NSWCATAD 271 Hearing dates: 14 November 2016 Date of orders: 24 November 2016 Decision date: 24 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Tibbey, Senior Member Decision: (1) The Applicant is to be identified by the pseudonym ‘CVV’ at all times in published reasons, reports and in the proceedings generally.
(2) The identity of the Applicant is not to be disclosed by the parties to these proceedings, or by any other persons and he is to be referred to as ‘CVV’.
(3) The work and home addresses of the Applicant shall not be disclosed by the parties or any other persons.Catchwords: Non-disclosure order Legislation Cited: Civil And Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, s64(1)(a). Cases Cited: State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69;
ACE v State of NSW (Tafe Commission and DET) (No 2) [2011] NSWADT77;
OV and anor v QZ and Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWADT 195;
D v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd [2001] NSWADT 92; JQ v Double Bay Out of School Hours Inc [2008] NSWADT337;
LD v Director-General DET and Anor [2009] NSWADT14;
R v A & B [1999] NSWADT 151;
V v Y & anor [2000] NSWADT 12;
X v Y & anor [2000] NSWADT 122.Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: CVV (Applicant)
United Resource Management Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Case (Applicant)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Harris and Harris Solicitors(Respondent)
File Number(s): 1610094
REASONS FOR DECISION
Nature of Application
-
The Applicant has made a claim of alleged discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation in his workplace on the grounds of imputed homosexuality.
-
This was an application under s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) for a non-disclosure order, seeking suppression of the name, residential and work addresses of the Applicant in the matter, pending further order of the Tribunal.
-
Written and oral submissions were made by both parties in relation to the application.
The Law
-
The Tribunal usually proceeds in accordance with the principles of “open justice”.
-
Section 64(1)(a) of the NCAT Act provides that:
64 The Tribunal may restrict disclosures concerning proceedings
(1) If the Tribunal 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, it may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) make any one or more of the following orders:
(a) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the name of any person (whether or not a party to proceedings in the Tribunal or a witness summoned by, or appearing before, the Tribunal),
(b) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication or broadcast of any report of proceedings in the Tribunal,
(c) an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CVV v United Resource Management Pty Ltd (Urm) 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
- [2016] NSWCATAD 271
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to address was whether the court should grant a non-disclosure order that would prevent the identification of CVV in any published reasons, reports, or during the proceedings. The court was also required to consider whether the work and home addresses of CVV should be disclosed. This required balancing the privacy and safety concerns of CVV against the public's right to access information about legal proceedings.
In granting the non-disclosure order, the court found that the Applicant had demonstrated a legitimate need for anonymity. The court recognised the serious allegations against URM and the potential for significant harm to CVV if his identity were disclosed. The court emphasised the importance of protecting individuals who come forward with information about unlawful conduct, particularly in cases involving potential criminal activity. The court concluded that the need to protect CVV's identity outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
The court ordered that CVV be identified as 'CVV' in all published reasons, reports, and proceedings. Additionally, the court prohibited the disclosure of CVV's work and home addresses. The court considered these measures necessary to protect CVV from potential harm and to encourage others in similar situations to come forward with information about unlawful conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The Applicant is to be identified by the pseudonym ‘CVV’ at all times in published reasons, reports and in the proceedings generally.
(2) The identity of the Applicant is not to be disclosed by the parties to these proceedings, or by any other persons and he is to be referred to as ‘CVV’.
(3) The work and home addresses of the Applicant shall not be disclosed by the parties or any other persons.
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.