FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Messenger v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] FCA 879
File number(s): TAD 28 of 2017 Judge(s): KERR J Date of judgment: 2 August 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Federal Court Rules 2011 r 2.32(3) – restriction of access to statement of claim by non-parties – originating application not yet served on Respondents – order restricting access limited until after affected party has notice of relevant matters Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), s 17
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.32
Registry: Tasmania Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3
Table of Corrections 2 August 2017 In Order 2, the words ‘First Respondent’ have been replaced with ‘Second Respondent’.
In Order 3, the words ‘First Respondent’ have been replaced with ‘Second Respondent’.
In paragraph 1 the words ‘First Respondent’ have been replaced with ‘Second Respondent’.
In paragraph 2 the words ‘First Respondent’ have been replaced with ‘Second Respondent’.
In paragraph 3 the words ‘First Respondent’ have been replaced with ‘Second Respondent’.
ORDERS
TAD 28 of 2017 BETWEEN: ROBERT DESMOND MESSENGER
Applicant
AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent
JACQUILINE LOUISE LAMBIE
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
KERR J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 AUGUST 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 2.32(3)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 the Statement of Claim be restricted from publication to persons other than parties in this proceeding.
2.Unless extended by further order, this order expires at 4.00 pm on the day following the Second Respondent filing a Notice of Address for Service.
3.Upon the Second Respondent filing a Notice of Address for Service, the Registrar is to advise the Second Respondent of this order.
4.Liberty to apply.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KERR J:
The Applicant has filed, but has not yet served, an originating application and a statement of claim in these proceedings. Pursuant to r 2.32(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, both documents would, absent an order by this Court, be available for inspection by a person who is not a party. That is consistent with the general principles of open justice as expressed by s 17 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. However r 2.32(3) gives the Court power to restrict access to such materials in appropriate, albeit exceptional, circumstances. In the present matter the Registrar has drawn my attention to certain matters pleaded in the statement of claim in reference to the Second Respondent which could be contended to be inconsistent with r 16.02(2) or otherwise engage the power in r 2.32(3).
Ordinarily it would be for a respondent in these proceedings to make an application that the Court exercise such a power, but as noted, the Respondents have yet to be served. The Second Respondent is unaware of any circumstances which might, if so advanced, lead her to seek such orders.
To preserve the position until the Second Respondent has been served and has filed a notice of address for service I have made interim orders as the relevant duty Judge, restricting access by non-parties to the statement of claim but not the originating application. My orders will expire automatically following that event unless the Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to make a further order. In the ordinary course such documents are available for inspection by non-parties. I express no view as to whether these orders can or ought be further extended.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kerr. Associate:
Dated: 2 August 2017
- AGLC
- Messenger v Commonwealth of Australia [2017] FCA 879
- Case
- [2017] FCA 879
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue before the court was whether it should grant an order restricting access to the Statement of Claim before it had been served on the respondents. The court had to balance the plaintiff's interest in keeping the sensitive information confidential against the public's interest in transparency and access to court documents. The court also needed to consider the timing of the application and the effect of the proposed restriction on the respondents' ability to prepare their defence.
The court held that the order should be granted but with specific conditions to ensure fairness to all parties involved. The restriction on access would be effective until the respondents had been served with the Statement of Claim and had an opportunity to respond. This approach aimed to protect the plaintiff's interests while also ensuring that the respondents were not unduly disadvantaged. The court noted that the restriction would expire once the respondents filed a Notice of Address for Service, at which point they would be informed of the order.
The court ordered that the Statement of Claim be restricted from publication to non-parties until certain conditions were met. The restriction would remain in place until the second respondent filed a Notice of Address for Service. Once this occurred, the Registrar was directed to inform the second respondent of the order. The court also allowed for the possibility of extending the order if necessary and granted liberty to apply for further orders if required.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 2.32(3)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 the Statement of Claim be restricted from publication to persons other than parties in this proceeding.
2. Unless extended by further order, this order expires at 4.00 pm on the day following the Second Respondent filing a Notice of Address for Service.
3. Upon the Second Respondent filing a Notice of Address for Service, the Registrar is to advise the Second Respondent of this order.
4. Liberty to apply.
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.