FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Griffin v Bartier Perry Pty Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 442
File number(s): SYG 312 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE DOUST Date of judgment: 26 March 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders –where matter referred to a mediation yet to occur – whether disclosure of pleadings might imperil mediation – whether suppression and non-publication orders necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – material suppressed until seven days after the termination of the Court ordered mediation process – application allowed Legislation: Fair Work Act2009 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 229, 230, 230(1)(b)(iv), 231, 231(1)(a), pt 7 div 2
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AE, 37AF, 37AG, pt VAA div 2
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.32, 2.32(1)(b), 2.32(2)
Cases cited: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; [2005] NSWCA 101
Patterson v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] FCA 629
Ryan v Transurban Limited [2024] FCA 994
Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd (2024) 305 FCR 340; [2024] FCA 1210
The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (2020) 275 FCR 377; [2020] FCAFC 44
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 47 Date of hearing: 21 March 2025 Place: Sydney Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr R Aslanian, Connect Legal Counsel for the Respondents: Mr B Rauf Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr L Zisis, Wotton Kearney Solicitor for the Access Applicant: Ms L Alick, Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd ORDERS
SYG 312 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CLEMENTINE GRIFFIN
Applicant
AND: BARTIER PERRY PTY LIMITED
First Respondent
RIANA STEYN
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE DOUST
DATE OF ORDER:
26 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 231(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit
Courtand Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act), in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the following material be suppressed until fourteen days after the termination of the Court ordered mediation process:(a)the Application – Dismissal from employment in contravention of general protection: Form 2 filed on 4 February 2025.
2.Pursuant to s 230(1)(b)(iv) of the FCFCOA Act, in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the Court prohibits the publication or other disclosure of the following material until fourteen days after the termination of the Court ordered mediation process:
(a)the Application – Dismissal from employment in contravention of general protection: Form 2 filed on 4 February 2025.
3.Until seven days after the termination of the Court ordered mediation process, where further material is to be filed in these proceedings (including the applicant’s statement of claim, the first and second respondents’ defence/s, and the applicant’s reply to be filed):
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffin v Bartier Perry Pty Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2G 442
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether suppression and non-publication orders were necessary to protect the mediation process and the proper administration of justice. The court acknowledged that the matter was in its early stages, and the timing of the mediation depended on the availability of a registrar. It was noted that similar considerations in prior cases like Patterson and Saw supported the making of such orders. The court was satisfied that disclosure of the Form 2 document could detrimentally impact the prospects of reaching a settlement and thus prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Although the mediation date had not been set, the potential for a resolution of the dispute through mediation was sufficient to warrant the orders. Consequently, the court allowed the application for suppression and non-publication orders concerning the Form 2 document.
The court declined to make any order regarding the defence and reply, as those documents had not yet been filed by the parties. The suppression and non-publication orders concerning the Form 2 document were to remain in effect until seven days after the termination of the Court-ordered mediation process. The final orders ensured that the mediation could proceed without the risk of prejudice from the publication of the Form 2 document, thereby protecting the integrity of the mediation process and the interests of justice.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
His Honour also declined to make any order in respect of the defence and reply as the documents had not yet been filed by the parties.CONSIDERATION The same considerations that arose in each of Patterson and Saw operate in the present matter and militate in favour of the making of suppression and non-publication orders in the present matter. The matter is in its infancy, and the initiating Form 2 document contains allegations about matters that might reasonably be regarded as sensitive, including matters involving persons who are not party to the proceedings. This matter will proceed to a mediation in the coming months. Precisely when the mediation occurs will depend upon the availability of a registrar of the Court to conduct the mediation, but it may reasonably be assumed that the Court will give the applicants the next available date at the time of allocation. The respondents, through Mr Zisis, have expressed concern that granting access to documents and the publishing of information arising from the documents before the mediation is closed may cause the parties difficulty in reaching a settlement as it may defeat the capacity for the parties to implement key elements of settlement agreements, including confidentiality and non-disparagement. The respondents also made submissions to that effect. Although the applicant did not also file evidence to that effect, I take from the applicant’s support of the orders sought that she takes a similar view. I accept that evidence and that submission, so far as it concerns the Form 2 document, which contains the allegations made by the applicant in the matter. I do not accept it in respect of the “Application – Fair Work Division” that was filed with the Form 2, given the content of that document. In those circumstances I am satisfied that disclosure of the Form 2 will have a detrimental impact on the prospects of the parties reaching settlement and that it is necessary, to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, to make orders of the type sought by the respondent concerning the Form 2. Ms Alick sought to distinguish the present matter from Saw and Patterson on the basis that as yet, a mediation date has not been appointed, whereas in Patterson the mediation process was already underway and estimated to conclude in a few days and in Saw the mediation was to take place in the following month. In each of those matters the period of the order was shorter than that sought in the present matter. However, that distinction does not sound in any relevant difference. In Patterson and Saw, the consideration militating in favour of the making of orders was the fact that there was a mediation process between the parties which was either in train or about to commence which process had the prospect of being productive of a resolution of the dispute. As a resolution of those matters would have been in the interests of the administration of justice, but might have been hindered by the disclosure and/or publication of the documents, disclosure of the documents would have been, in each case, prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. In each instance, orders were made until (at least) the conclusion of the mediation process, with the orders made by Perram J in Saw continuing for a period of seven days after the termination of the mediation process. The orders were directed to ensuring that the mediation process could take place without the prejudice to that process that might be caused by publication of documents.