FF v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd

[2016] NSWSC 872

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	FF v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 872
Hearing dates:	23 June 2016
Date of orders:	23 June 2016
Decision date:	23 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Davies J
Decision:	1. That the Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym "FF". 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and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the name and address of the Plaintiff and any member of her family not be published without the leave of the Court by reason of s 8(1)(e) of that Act. 3. There should be no order as to costs. 4. These 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:	FF (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):	2016/191444

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 Act2010 (NSW) in relation to the identity of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff claims that she suffered sexual and emotional abuse at the ashram operated by the First Defendant, and by the Second Defendant personally who was a senior member of the ashram management and performed the role of significant female supervisor of the children during the years 1976 to 1985 when the Plaintiff resided for the most part at the ashram. The First Defendant is sued as having a vicarious liability particularly for a deceased person who ran the ashram.

3. The Plaintiff seeks the use of a pseudonym and associated orders to protect her privacy in the matter. She has two sons and two twin daughters. Three of these children are minors. She is concerned about the impact that public knowledge of the proceedings may have on them. In addition, some members of her immediate family are not aware of the abuse that she suffered.

4. Her attendance at the ashram is detailed in a psychiatric report from Associate Professor Carolyn Quadrio of 31 December 2015. That discloses tension between the Plaintiff's father and mother at the time that she went to the ashram, with her mother encouraging that course and her father opposing it. That conflict has endured right up to the time of criminal proceedings which were taken against the now deceased principal manager of the ashram, the person for whom I mentioned the First Defendant is sued as being vicariously liable.

5. Further, publicity that was attracted by the Plaintiff's involvement in the Royal Commission has been shown in Professor Quadrio's report to be very damaging to her. She has had to move residences once because of earlier events associated with these matters. She would prefer to move again because of the reaction of some members of her local community, but is not able to do so because of her children and their schooling.

6. The Plaintiff used a pseudonym at the Royal Commission.

7. In 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]. What was said there is apposite in the present proceedings.

8. The Plaintiff in the present case demonstrates a clear need to have her privacy protected and to have anonymity in the pursuit of the proceedings that she seeks now to file. I am satisfied, following what was said by the Court of Appeal in Witness v Marsden, and by my own decision in AA, that similar orders should be made in the present case.

9. The orders I make are these:

1.   That the Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym "FF".

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 by reason of s 8(1)(e) of that Act.

3.    There should be no order as to costs.

4.   These orders may be entered forthwith.

10. Leave to file in Court a Notice of Motion and the affidavit of Julia Harrison sworn 23 June 2016.

**********

Decision last updated: 27 June 2016