FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lavin v Toppi (No 2) [2016] FCA 818
File number: NSD 692 of 2016 Judge: GLEESON J Date of judgment: 13 July 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for non-publication order – whether the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice –application refused Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Cases cited: D1 v P1 (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 440
Hogan v The Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCAFC 71; (2009) 177 FCR 205
Date of hearing: 13 July 2016 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 16 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr GD McDonald Solicitor for the Applicant: Gavin Parsons & Associates Counsel for the Respondents: Mr M Pesman SC with Mr C Alexander Solicitor for the Respondents: Beazley Boorman Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 692 of 2016 BETWEEN: DOLORES LAVIN
Applicant
AND: PAOLA TOPPI
First Respondent
NEIL CUNNINGHAM
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
GLEESON J
DATE OF ORDER:
13 JULY 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for a non-publication order is refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GLEESON J:
Mr McDonald, on behalf of the applicant, has proposed short minutes of order by consent which include a non-publication order in respect of most of [29] of the reasons for judgment of Manousaridis J in Paola Toppi & Anor v Dolores Lavin [2016] FCCA 830.
The Court’s power to make a non-publication order is contained in s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“the Act”). Section 37AF of the Act is as follows:
(1)The Court may, by making a suppression order or non‑publication order on grounds permitted by this Part, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of:
(a)information tending to reveal the identity of or otherwise concerning any party to or witness in a proceeding before the Court or any person who is related to or otherwise associated with any party to or witness in a proceeding before the Court; or
(b) information that relates to a proceeding before the Court and is:
(i)information that comprises evidence or information about evidence; or
(ii)information obtained by the process of discovery; or
(iii)information produced under a subpoena; or
(iv)information lodged with or filed in the Court.
(2)The Court may make such orders as it thinks appropriate to give effect to an order under subsection (1).
It is not clear that this provision includes the power to make a non-publication order in respect of a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“FCCA”). Rather, the power relevantly extends to orders in respect of information that relates to a proceeding before the Court and satisfies one of the criteria in s 37(1)(b)(i) through to (iv). I will proceed on the assumption that this Court can make an order under s 37AF in respect of the information…
Continue reading Lavin v Toppi (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lavin v Toppi (No 2) [2016] FCA 818
- Case
- [2016] FCA 818
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed non-publication order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The applicants argued that the publication of certain information would irreparably harm their reputations and the integrity of the proceedings. The court was tasked with balancing the applicants' right to a fair trial against the public's right to access information regarding court proceedings.
The court determined that the application for a non-publication order was not necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court found that the information in question did not contain sensitive details that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings or the integrity of the legal process. The court emphasised the importance of open justice and the public's right to access information regarding court proceedings, unless there were compelling reasons to restrict such access. Based on this reasoning, the court refused the application for a non-publication order. The applicants' request for a non-publication order was thereby denied, and the proceedings continued with the existing publication protocols.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for a non-publication order is refused.
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.