Kweifio-Okai v RMIT
[1997] IRCA 259
•15 Aug 1997
DECISION NO:259/97
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA
INDUSTRIAL LAW - PROHIBITION OF PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE -
consideration of the proper administration of justice and prejudice to the applicant - whether ‘prejudice’ refers to the inherent risks arising from the outcome of a proceeding - prejudice already accrued - likelihood of remedy - COSTS - whether initiated without reasonable cause -
Workplace Relations Act 1996 s347, 480
ABC v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129
SRD v Australian Securities Commission and Another (1994) 123 ALR 730
KWEIFIO-OKAI -V- RMIT
VI 2661 of 1996
PARKINSON JR
MELBOURNE
15 August 1997
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA ) VI 2661 of 1996
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
B E T W E E N: George KWEIFIO-OKAI
Applicant
AND: RMIT
Respondent
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR : PARKINSON
PLACE : MELBOURNE
DATED : 15 AUGUST 1997
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 11 August 1997 be dismissed.
The application for costs made by the respondent be dismissed.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA ) VI 2661 of 1996
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
B E T W E E N: George KWEIFIO-OKAI
Applicant
AND: RMIT
Respondent
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR : PARKINSON
PLACE : MELBOURNE
DATED : 15 AUGUST 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered ex-tempore - revised from transcript)
This is my decision delivered ex-tempore in relation to an application made by Notice of Motion by Dr. Kweifio-Okai, filed 11 August 1997. This is an application made pursuant to Section 480 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.(‘the Act’) The applicant seeks an order from the Court that:
“Anything pertaining to their case as presented to date or to be presented at future appeals to the Court should not be made public without my consent.”
Whilst the interests of a litigant, in this case Dr. Kweifio-Okai, in seeking the confidentiality order are relevant to the considerations of the application made pursuant to s480 of the Act, equally important in proceedings such as these is the consideration of the proper administration of justice. This consideration, in my view, involves matters such as ensuring that the actions of the Courts and their proceedings are open to scrutiny, public discussion and consideration and are transparent.
The grounds the applicant relies upon in two respects do not provide sufficient basis for an order of confidentiality to be made. The first ground in the Notice of Motion, that the decision of 25 July 1997 is misleading and wrong, is a ground which is best addressed by way of a review of the decision. I note this is a proceeding which has been issued by the applicant recently.
The second ground in the Notice of Motion, that written communications to certain employees of the respondent contained in the judgment by Judicial Registrar Parkinson were private and confidential and should remain so, was not a matter raised at any time during the course of the trial of the matter. A number of the documents to which the applicant upon the Notice of Motion refers, were tendered without objection, in the course of the proceedings, at first instance. In some cases the documents were tendered by the applicant's counsel, on the applicant's behalf.
As to the third ground, that publication of the case would damage the reputation and prospects of employment for the future of the applicant. Whilst it is clear that the authorities such as those to which the Court was referred by the respondent, ABC v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 and SRD v Australian Securities Commission and Another (1994) 123 ALR 730, clearly state the appropriateness of considerations of prejudice to the applicant, in my view the prejudice considered therein does not refer to the inherent risks associated with the outcome of a proceeding being unfavourable to an applicant in the proceeding.
The prejudice contemplates matters such as a serious deterrence to a person pursuing their legal entitlements or initiating legal proceedings at all, not something arising from the ordinary course of the proceedings or the ordinary or potential outcome of those proceedings. I do not consider that in this case the prejudice complained of by the applicant, when balanced against considerations of the proper administration of justice, warrant an order under s480 of the Act.
This is particularly so in this case because the application is made in relation to prejudice which has already accrued and prejudice which is, in my view, unlikely to be remedied by any order of the Court as to prospective confidentiality orders. Having regard to all of those matters, it is the Order of the Court that the Notice of Motion, filed by the applicant on 11 August, 1997, be dismissed.
Costs
The issue of the review relates to the first ground of the affidavit material. My decision in relation to the third aspect of that affidavit material was a decision which was based upon a consideration of the balancing factors and an according of weight to the particular interests of both parties in the proceedings and the proper administration of justice in this Court. Having regard to that matter I do not take the view that the proceedings can, on their face, be viewed as having been initiated without reasonable cause and the application for costs by the respondent pursuant to Section 347 of the Act is dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages
are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of
Judicial Registrar Parkinson.
Associate :
Dated : 15 August 1997
APPEARANCES
The Applicant in person
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. D. B. Moore
Solicitors for the Respondent : Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Dates of hearing : 15 August 1997
0
0
0