DFT22 v Australian Taxation Office - [2022] FedCFamC2G 883

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
DFT22 v Australian Taxation Office [2022] FedCFamC2G 883

File number(s): SYG 1122 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE LAING

Date of judgment: 26 October 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – whether orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – whether orders necessary to protect the safety of any person - application granted

Legislation:
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 229, 230, 231, 232

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.11

Cases cited:
AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2019] HCA 6; (2019) 93 ALJR 321

Bianca Hope Rinehart v Georgina Hope Rinehart [2014] FCA 1241; (2014) 320 ALR 195

BSL22 v BSM22 [2022] FCA 558

Ferguson v Tasmanian Cricket Association (trading as Cricket Tasmania) [2021] FCA 1507

Huikeshoven v Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] FCA 1359

National Australia Bank Limited v KRDV [2012] FCA 543

Taylor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2021] FCA 664

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Date of hearing: 28 September 2022; 24 October 2022

Number of paragraphs: 20

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms L Andelman

Solicitor for the Applicant: Kingsford Legal Centre

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms E Petrie (Moray & Agnew)
ORDERS

SYG 1122 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
DFT22

Applicant

AND:
THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE LAING

DATE OF ORDER:

26 OCTOBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 230 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), until further order of the Court:
(a)The applicant continue to be referred to by the pseudonym DFT22 in connection with these proceedings; and
(b)Publication of any information tending to reveal the actual name, address, email or phone number of the applicant in connection with these proceedings is prohibited, except that the Court and Court staff, the parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives and witnesses in the proceedings may identify the applicant for the purposes of or associated with the proceedings.

2.Order 1 is made on the grounds specified in s 231(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
3.The registry must take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that any document filed in these proceedings to which public access is granted, or that is released to any person, is first redacted to any extent necessary so as not to reveal the actual name, address, email or phone number of the applicant.
4.The costs of and incidental to the application for suppression and non-publication orders are reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DFT22 v Australian Taxation Office 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FedCFamC2G 883
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, DFT22, sought suppression and non-publication orders from the court to protect their identity in a case involving the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The applicant's identity needed protection for safety reasons and to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether suppression and non-publication orders were necessary to protect the applicant’s safety and to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the case and whether the orders would achieve the intended purpose without causing undue harm to the applicant or the proceedings.

The court determined that such orders were necessary under the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act. The court accepted that the applicant's safety was at risk and that the orders would prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The court was satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support the need for the orders.

The court subsequently made suppression and non-publication orders in line with the terms sought by the applicant. This decision recognised the importance of protecting the applicant's identity while balancing the need for transparency and fairness in the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

I therefore accept that the making of suppression and non-publication orders protecting the applicant’s identity is necessary to protect his safety within the meaning of s 231(1)(c) of the FCFCOA Act. I also accept that such orders are “necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice”: s 231(1)(a) of the FCFCOA Act.CONCLUSION On the basis of the above, I will make suppression and non-publication orders in the terms ultimately sought by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 1122 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE LAING
Date of judgment:	26 October 2022
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – whether orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – whether orders necessary to protect the safety of any person - application granted
Legislation:	Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 229, 230, 231, 232 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.11
Cases cited:	AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2019] HCA 6; (2019) 93 ALJR 321 Bianca Hope Rinehart v Georgina Hope Rinehart [2014] FCA 1241; (2014) 320 ALR 195 BSL22 v BSM22 [2022] FCA 558 Ferguson v Tasmanian Cricket Association (trading as Cricket Tasmania) [2021] FCA 1507 Huikeshoven v Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] FCA 1359 National Australia Bank Limited v KRDV [2012] FCA 543 Taylor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2021] FCA 664
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Date of hearing:	28 September 2022; 24 October 2022
Number of paragraphs:	20
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms L Andelman
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Kingsford Legal Centre
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms E Petrie (Moray & Agnew)

SYG 1122 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	DFT22 Applicant
AND:	THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:	26 OCTOBER 2022