Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited

Case [2010] FCAFC 115

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115

Citation: Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal:
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCA 720
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No 3) [2010] FCA 903
Parties: VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE v COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 067 254 399)
File number: NSD  909 of 2010
Judges: MARSHALL, RARES AND FLICK JJ
Date of judgment: 1 September 2010
Catchwords:

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – suppression orders – application for suppression orders relating to the names of two persons, one male, one female – power to suppress names of persons by court exercised only when necessary to do so in the interests of justice – prior publication of male person’s name in court document available to public inspection

Held:  The name of the female, but not the male, be suppressed.
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 17, 50
Federal Court Rules O 46 r 6
Cases cited:

Catena v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2010] FCA 598
Dickason v Dickason (1913) 17 CLR 50
E v Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 27 FCR 310
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1
Guglielmin v Trescowthick (No 3) [2005] FCA 139, 220 ALR 535
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21, 267 ALR 12 applied
John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
Llewellyn v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 154 FCR 293

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Respondent A (1994) 54 FCR 333
Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1578
SRD v Australian Securities Commission (1994) 52 FCR 187
The Food Improvers Pty Ltd v BGR Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) (2006) 155 FCR 216
X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2007] HCA 4, 226 CLR 630
Date of hearing: 1 September 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Appellant: PE King
Solicitor for the Appellant: Turner Freeman
Counsel for the Respondent: KL Eastman and G Wright
Solicitor for the Respondent: Freehills

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD  909 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

VIVIENNE LOUISE DYE
Appellant
AND:

COMMONWEALTH SECURITIES LIMITED (ACN 067 254 399)
Respondent

JUDGES:

MARSHALL, RARES AND FLICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 SEPTEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Until further order, the identity of the female referred to in paragraph 9 on page 724 of volume 2, part B, of the application books, being page 2 of the statement by the application to the New South Wales Police dated 13 February 2009, be suppressed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF…

Continue reading Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCAFC 115
Case
[2010] FCAFC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited involved an application for suppression orders concerning the names of two individuals, a male and a female, to be withheld from public disclosure. The application was heard by a court, which had the authority to suppress the identities of individuals only when necessary in the interests of justice. The dispute arose because the male individual's name had already been disclosed in a court document that was accessible to the public.

The court was tasked with determining whether the suppression of the names of both individuals was warranted and whether the suppression order should apply retroactively to the male's previously disclosed name. The central legal issue was whether the suppression order could be applied to the male's name, given that it had already been published, and whether the suppression of the female's name was justified under the circumstances.

The court concluded that while the suppression order could be applied to the female's name to protect her identity, it could not be applied retroactively to the male's name since it had already been made public through the court document. The court reasoned that the suppression order was meant to prevent further dissemination of personal information that could potentially harm the individuals, and since the male's name was already in the public domain, applying the suppression order to him would not serve the intended purpose of the order. Consequently, the court ordered that the identity of the female, but not the male, be suppressed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Until further order, the identity of the female referred to in paragraph 9 on page 724 of volume 2, part B, of the application books, being page 2 of the statement by the application to the New South Wales Police dated 13 February 2009, be suppressed.

Note:

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.