FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 906
File number(s): SYG 1421 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON Date of judgment: 12 June 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Third party request for access to documents on the electronic court file – applicable principles and consideration of the interests of the proper administration of justice. Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s. 368
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ch. 4, ss. 229, 230, 231
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr. 1.04, 2.11
Cases cited: Commonwealth of Australia v De Pyle [2024] FCAFC 43
Dincer v Amazon Support Services [2025] FedCFamC2G 824
Griffin v Bartier Perry Pty Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 442
Koulouris v Sourasis [2025] FCA 452
Patterson v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] FCA 629
Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863
Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863
Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311
Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2024] FCA 1210
The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (2020) 275 FCR 377
Division: Fair Work Number of paragraphs: 23 Date of hearing: 6 June 2025 Place: Sydney Applicant The applicant appeared in person by videoconference Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B Rauf Solicitors for the Respondents: King & Spalding Non-party Access Applicant:
Nine Entertainment Co Pty LtdMr D Marin-Guzman, by leave ORDERS
SYG 1421 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SERHAT SEVKI DINCER
Applicant
AND: AMAZON SUPPORT SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 163 823 416)
First Respondent
OLIVER BAILLOT
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:
12 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 231(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) the following material be suppressed until 7 days after the termination of the Court-ordered mediation process:
(a)the Application - Fair Work Division filed 12 May 2025;
(b)the Form 2 claim form filed 12 May 2025; and
(c)the affidavit of the applicant filed 2 June 2025.
2.Pursuant to s 230(1)(b)(iv) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) the Court prohibits the publication or other disclosure of the following material until 7 days after the termination of the Court-ordered mediation process:
(a)the Application - Fair Work Division filed 12 May 2025;
(b)the Form 2 claim form filed 12 May 2025; and
(c)the affidavit of the applicant filed 2 June 2025.
3.Until 7 days after the termination of the Court-ordered mediation process, where further material is to be filed in this proceeding, including any defence to be filed:
(a)the parties must confer before the filing of that material to determine whether such material should be the subject of orders 1 and 2; and
(b)either party may apply to the Court on an…
Continue reading Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 906
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2G 906
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2) involves the respondents seeking to suppress or prohibit the publication of specific documents in the proceeding until seven days after the conclusion of a mediation ordered on 26 May 2025. The respondents are concerned that non-party access to these documents could jeopardise the parties' ability to reach a settlement during the mediation process. They argue that if such documents are published before the mediation concludes, the confidentiality and non-disparagement elements of potential settlement agreements could be compromised.
The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression or non-publication of the specified documents was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The respondents' concerns centered on the potential for incomplete and inaccurate reporting of the proceedings if non-parties were allowed access to the documents before the respondents had a chance to engage with the pleadings and state their positions. The court considered the statutory provisions under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, which permit the court to make such orders if they are necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice.
The court found that the suppression or non-publication of the documents was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The orders would be effective until seven days after the conclusion of the mediation, aligning with the respondents' concerns about the timing and potential impact of the publication of these documents on the mediation process. The court concluded that it would be an error not to make the order once it was determined to be necessary, referencing the Full Court of the Federal Court's decision in The Country Care Group case.
The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression or non-publication of the specified documents was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The respondents' concerns centered on the potential for incomplete and inaccurate reporting of the proceedings if non-parties were allowed access to the documents before the respondents had a chance to engage with the pleadings and state their positions. The court considered the statutory provisions under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, which permit the court to make such orders if they are necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice.
The court found that the suppression or non-publication of the documents was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The orders would be effective until seven days after the conclusion of the mediation, aligning with the respondents' concerns about the timing and potential impact of the publication of these documents on the mediation process. The court concluded that it would be an error not to make the order once it was determined to be necessary, referencing the Full Court of the Federal Court's decision in The Country Care Group case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The respondents did file such an application in a proceeding and now seek the suppression of, or a prohibition on the publication or other disclosure of, the following material until 7 days after the termination of the mediation ordered on 26 May 2025:(a)the Application - Fair Work Division (filed with Form 2) filed on 12 May 2025;(b) the Application - Dismissal from employment in contravention of general protection filed on 12 May 2025; and(c) the Affidavit of the Applicant in support of the application for an extension of time (to be filed on 30 May 2025).They also seek consequential orders. These reasons concern that application.BACKGROUND FACTS My reasons for making the non-publication order of 26 May 2025 were reduced to writing in Dincer v Amazon Support Services [2025] FedCFamC2G 824. Those reasons recorded that on 12 May 2025 the Australian Financial Review (AFR) had requested access to Mr Dincer’s application and Form 2 and that I had directed the registry that access should not be permitted prior to the matter’s first court date. The AFR had queried that decision and sought an explanation so the matter was listed for the making of a formal order and the giving of reasons on 26 May 2025.EVIDENCE In support of their application in a proceeding, the respondents rely on the affidavit of their solicitor, Mr Edwards, affirmed 30 May 2025. Mr Edwards has relevantly deposed that:7. It is the Respondents' concern that non-party access to documents in the proceeding may jeopardise the parties [sic] ability to reach settlement at mediation. Orders for mediation have been made in this proceeding and the Respondents intend to meaningfully engage in that process.8. It is also the Respondents' concern that if non-parties are granted access to the documents and publish information arising from the documents in the proceeding before the mediation is closed, key elements of settlement agreements typically including confidentiality and non-disparagement may become futile and cause the parties difficulties in reaching settlement.9. Further, the Respondents are concerned that, if the Access Request is granted at this stage, there will be an incomplete and potentially inaccurate reporting of the proceedings in circumstances where the Respondents have not as yet engaged with the pleadings or stated their respective positions. In this regard, I also note that the Second Respondent is an individual person who may wish to exercise his right to privilege against exposure to penalty in the proceedings.LEGISLATION AND RULES The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (Act) relevantly provides in relation to this Court as follows:Division 2—Suppression and non-publication orders229 Safeguarding public interest in open justiceIn deciding whether to make a suppression order or non-publication order, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.230 Power to make orders(1)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may, by making a suppression order or non-publication order on grounds permitted by this Part, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of:…(b)information that relates to a proceeding before the Court and is:…(iv) information lodged with or filed in the Court.(2)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make such orders as it thinks appropriate to give effect to an order under subsection (1).231 Grounds for making an order(1)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the following grounds:(a)the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice;…(2) A suppression order or non-publication order must specify the ground or grounds on which the order is made.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
My reasons for making the non-publication order of 26 May 2025 were reduced to writing in Dincer v Amazon Support Services [2025] FedCFamC2G 824. Those reasons recorded that on 12 May 2025 the Australian Financial Review (AFR) had requested access to Mr Dincer’s application and Form 2 and that I had directed the registry that access should not be permitted prior to the matter’s first court date. The AFR had queried that decision and sought an explanation so the matter was listed for the making of a formal order and the giving of reasons on 26 May 2025.EVIDENCE In support of their application in a proceeding, the respondents rely on the affidavit of their solicitor, Mr Edwards, affirmed 30 May 2025. Mr Edwards has relevantly deposed that:7. It is the Respondents' concern that non-party access to documents in the proceeding may jeopardise the parties [sic] ability to reach settlement at mediation. Orders for mediation have been made in this proceeding and the Respondents intend to meaningfully engage in that process.8. It is also the Respondents' concern that if non-parties are granted access to the documents and publish information arising from the documents in the proceeding before the mediation is closed, key elements of settlement agreements typically including confidentiality and non-disparagement may become futile and cause the parties difficulties in reaching settlement.9. Further, the Respondents are concerned that, if the Access Request is granted at this stage, there will be an incomplete and potentially inaccurate reporting of the proceedings in circumstances where the Respondents have not as yet engaged with the pleadings or stated their respective positions. In this regard, I also note that the Second Respondent is an individual person who may wish to exercise his right to privilege against exposure to penalty in the proceedings.LEGISLATION AND RULES The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (Act) relevantly provides in relation to this Court as follows:Division 2—Suppression and non-publication orders229 Safeguarding public interest in open justiceIn deciding whether to make a suppression order or non-publication order, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.230 Power to make orders(1)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may, by making a suppression order or non-publication order on grounds permitted by this Part, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of:…(b)information that relates to a proceeding before the Court and is:…(iv) information lodged with or filed in the Court.(2)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make such orders as it thinks appropriate to give effect to an order under subsection (1).231 Grounds for making an order(1)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may make a suppression order or non-publication order on one or more of the following grounds:(a)the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice;…(2) A suppression order or non-publication order must specify the ground or grounds on which the order is made.
Decision
Reasons for decision
As to whether the Court should hesitate to make suppression or non-publication orders because doing so might influence parties’ attitudes to mediation or conciliation conferences before the Commission, the answer to that concern is supplied by the Full Court of the Federal Court in The Country Care Group case at 379 [9] where it was said:… Once the court is satisfied that an order is necessary, it would be an error not to make it. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence provided in the affidavit of Mr Edwards and for the reasons I have given, I find that it is necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice that orders of the sort sought by the respondents be made. In doing so I note that those orders will not operate later than 7 days from the conclusion of the mediation ordered on 26 May 2025, which is an important qualification that reflects the underlying reason for making the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.