FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2025] FCA 62
File number: NSD 189 of 2024 Judgment of: RANGIAH J Date of judgment: 3 February 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for a suppression and non-publication order under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - whether the order is necessary to protect the safety of any person – that persons will be vilified or harassed if their identities and contact details were disclosed - application granted Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 50 and 772
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AA and 37AG(1)(c)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 2.32(4)
Cases cited: Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications [2019] FCA 36 Division: Fair Work Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of interlocutory hearing: 3 February 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O Fagir with Mr P Boncardo Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Counsel for the Respondent: Mr I Neil SC with Ms V Bulut Solicitor for the Respondent: Seyfarth Shaw Australia Counsel for the Intervenor: Ms S Chrysanthou SC with Mr N Olson Solicitor for the Intervenor: Giles George ORDERS
NSD 189 of 2024 BETWEEN: ANTOINETTE LATTOUF
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:
3 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) and on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons, for a period of 10 years, the names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints to the respondent about its employment or engagement of the applicant in December 2023, are not to be published or otherwise disclosed, and may only be accessed from the Court file by the Court, Court staff, a party to these proceedings and their legal representatives.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED EX TEMPORE AND REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)RANGIAH J:
In this proceeding, the applicant alleges that her employment was terminated by the respondent in contravention of ss 50 and 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
On Saturday, 1 February 2024, an interlocutory application was lodged for filing on behalf of nine named persons seeking a non-publication order in respect of their identities and contact details. I will refer to those persons as the Intervening Parties.
The Intervening Parties are persons who had made complaints to the respondent in December 2023 about the respondent’s employment of the applicant, which the applicant alleges contributed to the termination of her employment. The identities and contact details of those persons are revealed in affidavits filed in the proceeding.
The Court has, with the agreement of the parties, decided to broadcast the hearing via a live stream and has also set up an online file on which affidavits…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 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] FCA 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the suppression and non-publication order was necessary to protect the safety of the complainants. It had to weigh the need for confidentiality against the public's right to know and the principles of open justice. The court considered the potential harm to the complainants if their identities were disclosed, including the risk of personal attacks, threats, and harassment. The court also assessed the public interest in the matter and the degree of sensitivity required to safeguard the complainants' welfare.
The Federal Court granted the application, concluding that the safety of the complainants required the suppression and non-publication of their identities and contact details. The court found that there was a significant risk of harm to the complainants if their identities were revealed, and that this risk outweighed the public interest in open justice. Consequently, the court ordered that the complainants' information be kept confidential for a period of 10 years, accessible only to the court, court staff, parties to the proceedings, and their legal representatives. The order aimed to protect the complainants from potential harm while balancing the need for some level of transparency and accountability in the employment practices of the ABC.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) and on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons, for a period of 10 years, the names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints to the respondent about its employment or engagement of the applicant in December 2023, are not to be published or otherwise disclosed, and may only be accessed from the Court file by the Court, Court staff, a party to these proceedings and their legal representatives.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.