Kean v Sky Channel Pty Ltd - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1171

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kean v Sky Channel Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 1171

File number(s): SYG 2098 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE LAING

Date of judgment: 25 July 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – where application made in the context of an upcoming mediation – whether orders for a limited period are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – orders made

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 & 229

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.11

Cases cited:
Bianca Hope Rinehart v Georgina Hope Rinehart [2014] FCA 1241; (2014) 320 ALR 195

Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 906

Griffin v Bartier Perry Pty Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 442

Huikeshoven v Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] FCA 1359

McLaughlin v Glenn [2020] FCA 679

Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1101

Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863

Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2024] FCA 1210

Taylor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2021] FCA 664

The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44; (2020) 275 FCR 377

Valentine v Fremantlemedia Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1293

Division: General

Number of paragraphs: 23

Date of hearing: 21 July 2025

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr R Aslanian of Connect Legal

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms K Eastman SC with Mr G Gee

Solicitor for the First Respondent: King & Wood Mallesons

Second Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

SYG 2098 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
CHYNNA KEAN

Applicant

AND:
SKY CHANNEL PTY LTD ABN 77 009 136 010

First Respondent

JOHN SCORSE

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LAING

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 230 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), disclosure or publication of the following material (except to the parties, their legal representatives, Court staff and/or any process server engaged to serve documents upon a party) be prohibited on the ground that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice pursuant to s 231(1)(a):
(a)       the Application filed by the Applicant on 18 June 2025;
(b)       the affidavit of Simone Tania Aloi sworn 8 July 2025;
(c)       the affidavit of Simone Tania Aloi sworn 16 July 2025; and
(d)      the First Respondent’s Outline of Submissions dated 8 July 2025.

2.Order 1 is to apply until seven days after termination of the mediation scheduled pursuant to the Orders made on 16 July 2025.
3.The Application in a Proceeding filed by the First Respondent is otherwise dismissed.
4.Order 4 of the Orders made on 9 July 2025 be vacated.
5.Liberty to apply.

Note: The…

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 Kean v Sky Channel Pty Ltd 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: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1171
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kean v Sky Channel Pty Ltd involved an application for non-publication and suppression orders made by Sky Channel against Ms. Kean. The application was made in the context of an impending mediation aimed at resolving the underlying dispute. The court was required to decide whether such orders, if granted, should be for a limited period to prevent any potential prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the suppression and non-publication orders should be granted and, if so, whether they should operate for a limited period. The court also needed to consider the impact of these orders on the mediation process and whether they were necessary to maintain the integrity of the proceedings.

The court concluded that the orders sought were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Therefore, it granted suppression and non-publication orders in the revised terms sought by Sky Channel. These orders were to expire seven days after the scheduled mediation, ensuring they did not unduly influence the mediation process. The court also dismissed the broader interim suppression and non-publication orders made on 9 July 2025 and vacated Order 4 of the Orders made on the same date, which pertained to the filing and service of a Statement of Claim. This decision was made following the parties' request to postpone procedural orders regarding the pleadings until after the mediation, if it proved unsuccessful.

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

Having regard to the foregoing, I am persuaded that the orders sought are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. They ought therefore to be made.CONCLUSION On the basis of the above, I will make suppression and non-publication orders in the revised terms ultimately sought by Sky Channel. Those orders will be expressed to operate for a limited period of time, expiring 7 days after the scheduled mediation that has been ordered by the Court. The Interim Application will otherwise be dismissed. As the application will thereby be determined, this will result in the cessation of the (broader) suppression and non-publication orders made on an interim basis on 9 July 2025. I will also make an order vacating Order 4 of the Orders made on 9 July 2025, which provided for the filing and service of a Statement of Claim. Although this order was originally proposed by Ms Kean and Sky Channel, they have subsequently sought that procedural orders regarding the pleadings be left until after the mediation, if unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 2098 of 2025
Judgment of:	JUDGE LAING
Date of judgment:	25 July 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication and suppression orders – where application made in the context of an upcoming mediation – whether orders for a limited period are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – orders made
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 & 229 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 2.11
Cases cited:	Bianca Hope Rinehart v Georgina Hope Rinehart [2014] FCA 1241; (2014) 320 ALR 195 Dincer v Amazon Support Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 906 Griffin v Bartier Perry Pty Limited [2025] FedCFamC2G 442 Huikeshoven v Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] FCA 1359 McLaughlin v Glenn [2020] FCA 679 Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1101 Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863 Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2024] FCA 1210 Taylor v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2021] FCA 664 The Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44; (2020) 275 FCR 377 Valentine v Fremantlemedia Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1293
Division:	General
Number of paragraphs:	23
Date of hearing:	21 July 2025
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr R Aslanian of Connect Legal
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms K Eastman SC with Mr G Gee
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	King & Wood Mallesons
Second Respondent:	No appearance

SYG 2098 of 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	CHYNNA KEAN Applicant
AND:	SKY CHANNEL PTY LTD ABN 77 009 136 010 First Respondent JOHN SCORSE Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JULY 2025