In the matter of an application - [2024] ACTSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	In the matter of an application by Joshua Ceramidas
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 214
Hearing Date:	5 July 2024
Decision Date:	5 July 2024
Before:	Elkaim AJ
Decision:	(1) The application for an injunction in terms of Order 4 of the interlocutory relief sought in the originating application filed on 1 July 2024 is rejected. (2) The suppression orders made on 1 July 2024 are continued until further order. (3) I will hear the parties in relation to any application for costs.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Application for urgent interlocutory injunction where Commission intends to receive submissions from Counsel Assisting in public – where statute does not specifically refer to submissions – whether implicit in the statute is power to order submissions to be heard in public – whether plaintiff has established a serious question to be tried – balance of convenience – where majority of evidence heard by Commission was heard in public
Legislation Cited:	Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 30 Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) s 31 Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT) pt 3.6, ss 6, 79, 100, 142, 143, 146, 147, 154, 166, 184, 204
Cases cited:	Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; 273 CLR 289 In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover [2024] ACTSC 197 SAS Trustee Corporation v Miles [2018] HCA 55; 265 CLR 137 Smits v Roach [2006] HCA 36; 227 CLR 423
Parties:	Joshua Ceramidas (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel S Palaniappan (Plaintiff) B D Kaplan (Defendant)
Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 224 of 2024

ELKAIM AJ:

On 1 July 2024, the plaintiff filed an originating application seeking judicial review of a decision and the conduct of the first defendant. I will hereafter refer to the first defendant as the defendant because, by consent, I removed the second defendant from the proceedings on 1 July 2024.
In addition to the orders for judicial review, the plaintiff also sought interlocutory relief pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings. Orders 2 and 3 of the interlocutory orders claimed were made on a consent basis, but only until further order.
The request for Order 4 was stood over until today, in order to give the parties time to prepare their evidence and submissions. Order 4 is as follows:
An interlocutory temporary injunction injuncting the first defendant from live streaming, conducting in public, or otherwise distributing the oral and written closing submissions until further order of this Court.
The matter having been adjourned until today, and the parties making oral submissions, the time left for the preparation of a judgment was limited. My reasons endeavour to provide the parties with the basis for my decision, and in particular, to inform the losing party of the reasons for its loss.
The application for an injunction…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read In the matter of an application 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] ACTSC 214
Decision Date: 5 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission from receiving submissions from Counsel Assisting in public during an investigation. The applicant argued that the Commission's intention to conduct public hearings for these submissions was contrary to the statutory framework governing the proceedings. The primary concern was whether the statute implicitly conferred the power to order such public submissions, whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found no explicit reference to the manner in which submissions from Counsel Assisting should be conducted. However, it considered the overall purpose and context of the statutory scheme. The court found that while the majority of the evidence had been heard in public, the nature of submissions from Counsel Assisting might differ, and the statutory silence did not necessarily imply a power to conduct these in public. Additionally, the court determined that the applicant had not established a serious question to be tried regarding the public nature of these submissions. The balance of convenience also favoured maintaining the status quo until further evidence could be evaluated.

The court rejected the application for an injunction, allowing the Commission to proceed with receiving submissions from Counsel Assisting in public, subject to the existing suppression orders. The court also indicated that it would consider any future applications for costs. This decision underscores the importance of statutory interpretation in determining the powers of administrative bodies and the procedural rights of parties involved in such proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application for an injunction in terms of Order 4 of the interlocutory relief sought in the originating application filed on 1 July 2024 is rejected.

(2) The suppression orders made on 1 July 2024 are continued until further order.

(3) I will hear the parties in relation to any application for costs.

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.