Kaldas v Barbour

[2016] NSWSC 1737

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Kaldas v Barbour [2016] NSWSC 1737
Hearing dates:	6 December 2016
Date of orders:	06 December 2016
Decision date:	06 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Orders sought made.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – notice of motion – order for short service – order sought pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Act 2010 (NSW) – orders made
Legislation Cited:	Court Suppression and Non-Publication Act 2010 (NSW) Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Naguib (Nick) Kaldas (Plaintiff) Bruce Barbour (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Moses SC with Ms R Gall (Plaintiff)   Solicitors: William Roberts Lawyers (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2016/365973
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: By summons filed in court this afternoon the plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to an impending report anticipated to be given by the Ombudsman under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW).

2. By motion also filed this afternoon, orders for short service are sought as well as interlocutory relief of various kinds, including an order under section 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act2010 (NSW) in relation to the non-publication of certain documents exhibited to an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff's solicitor, Mr Ishak, which is presently subject to non-publication orders made pursuant to the Ombudsman Act. The purpose of that order is to ensure that, by inadvertence or otherwise, those orders are not trammelled.

3. The necessary undertakings have been given by the plaintiff as to payment of filing fees and so on. It is proposed that upon service of the documents, the matter would come into the list at 2.00pm on 8 December for hearing of the further interlocutory relief which is sought.

4. Having considered what is sought by way of summons and the motion supported, as the application is, by matters outlined in Mr Ishak's 6 December affidavit, I am satisfied that the orders sought at this stage, namely those contained in the document which are marked MFI 1 should be made.

5. Those orders give leave for short service of the documents there referred to as well as listing the matter for hearing at 2.00pm on 8 December. The orders contemplate that the hearing will proceed before the duty judge, but that's unlikely to be possible given what I anticipate might be involved in the hearing. I will strike from MFI 1 in paragraph 5 the words, "before the duty judge". Otherwise I make the orders in the terms sought, noting as to the order under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act that I am satisfied, on what is before the Court, that that order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and that it is in the public interest for the order to be made and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice, given the material is the subject of non-publication orders already made pursuant to the Ombudsman Act.

**********

Amendments

07 December 2016 - Counsel initial corrected

Decision last updated: 07 December 2016