EE v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd

[2016] NSWSC 870

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	EE v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 870
Hearing dates:	23 June 2016
Date of orders:	23 June 2016
Decision date:	23 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Davies J
Decision:	1. The Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym "EE". 2. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the name and address of the Plaintiff and any member of her family not be published without the leave of the Court in reliance on s 8(1)(e) of that Act. 3. There will be no order as to costs on the application. 4. The orders may be entered forthwith.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – application to commence proceedings by plaintiff using a pseudonym and for suppression of the plaintiff’s identity – plaintiff sexually abused as a minor by defendants – claims made in respect of abuse
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	AA v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 236 Witness v Marsden & Anor [2000] NSWCA 52
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	EE (Plaintiff) Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Sharman Okan (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: J Lonergan SC (Plaintiff) No appearances (Defendants)   Solicitors: Carroll & O’Dea (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2016/191427

Judgment

1. The Plaintiff by Notice of Motion seeks leave to bring proceedings using a pseudonym and asks that the Court make a suppression or non-publication order under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) in relation to the identity of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant, which ran and operated an ashram at Mangrove Mountain in the 1970s. The Plaintiff attended the ashram in that period. The Defendant is sued as having a vicarious liability for the person who had authority to manage the ashram at the relevant time.

3. The Plaintiff seeks the use of a pseudonym and the associated orders to protect her privacy in the matter, and also because of concerns in relation to her two sons, aged 19 and 26, about the impact that the public knowledge of the proceedings may have on them.

4. I have been taken to a report of Associate Professor Carolyn Quadrio dated 4 May 2015. Professor Quadrio examined the Plaintiff in 2015 and has provided a detailed report. It discloses mental health issues in the Plaintiff dating back at least 12 years. The Plaintiff currently suffers from recurrent depression and anxiety and there appear to be paranoid and psychotic overtones to her condition. Professor Quadrio diagnoses that she suffers from chronic complex post-traumatic disorder, chronic mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and post-traumatic personality change.

5. The Plaintiff appeared at the Royal Commission into Child Sex Abuse not using a pseudonym. She was apparently in the public eye on television giving evidence at the Commission. She lives in the Bathurst area. She told Professor Quadrio that some people in the Bathurst area are okay about it but others are not, and that has caused its own problems for the Plaintiff in relation to her psychiatric condition.

6. I am informed from the bar table that she now regrets the public way that she dealt with the matter at the Royal Commission. For that reason, and for the reason of avoiding the full knowledge of the claim from her sons, she seeks the use of a pseudonym.

7. I made similar orders in three matters in March 2016 in a judgment of AA v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 236. I made reference to what was said by the Court of Appeal in Witness v Marsden [2000] NSWCA 52 at [14], [17] and [140]. The principle associated with the use of a pseudonym in a case like this is not seriously in doubt. The only issue in any given case is the need for that pseudonym.

8. I am satisfied in the present case that despite the Plaintiff's public appearance at the Royal Commission, her psychiatric condition is demonstrated to be such that it would be harmful to her if the present proceedings were not constituted in a way that protected her privacy and gave to her anonymity.

9. Accordingly, the orders that I make are:

1.   The Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym "EE".

2. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the name and address of the Plaintiff and any member of her family not be published without the leave of the Court in reliance on s 8(1)(e) of that Act.

3.   There will be no order as to costs on the application.

4.   The orders may be entered forthwith.

10. The Notice of Motion and affidavit of Julia Harrison sworn 23 June 2016 may be filed in Court.

**********

Decision last updated: 27 June 2016