Lavin v Toppi (No 2)

Case [2016] FCA 818


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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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

Details
AGLC
Lavin v Toppi (No 2) [2016] FCA 818
Case
[2016] FCA 818
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lavin v Toppi (No 2), the applicants sought a non-publication order to prevent the publication of certain information regarding the proceedings. The nature of the dispute centred around the applicants' concerns that the publication of specific details would prejudice the proper administration of justice. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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.