The Court directs that AB forward to the Associate of the Court as presently constituted in Chambers short minutes of order reflecting this judgment on or before 10am, 8 January 2018 together with a note indicating whether or not the Intervenor objects to those orders. In the event that there is no dispute, the Court will deal with the orders administratively in Chambers. In the event that there is a dispute as to orders, the Intervenor shall propose alternative orders by 15 January 2018. In the event of such a dispute, the Court will deal with the orders by a determination made in Chambers. There is liberty to apply by 4pm, 8 January 2018 in the event that any variation to these directions is sought by either party.
Catchwords:
ORDERS – suppression and non-publication orders – orders sought under s 7 – final issue as to orders regarding the naming of schools – orders sought by applicant granted
COSTS – whether an Intervenor is subject to costs orders – principles regarding costs in case of intervention – conduct of proceedings – directions
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Moseley v AB (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Moseley v AB (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1812
Case
[2017] NSWSC 1812
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter involved an application by an individual against an entity for suppression and non-publication orders regarding the naming of schools, with the case being heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought orders under section 7 of the relevant legislation, specifically addressing the final issue of whether the names of certain schools should be suppressed or published. The entity and an Intervenor opposed the application, with the latter arguing that the application should be dismissed on the basis that it was an abuse of process.
The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to the sought orders and whether the Intervenor, who had intervened in the proceedings, was subject to any costs orders. The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of section 7 of the legislation, the principles governing costs in cases of intervention, and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.
The court found in favour of the applicant, granting the sought orders regarding the naming of the schools. In reaching this decision, the court considered the provisions of section 7 and the factors that should be taken into account when deciding whether to make such orders. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the orders, as the publication of the names of the schools would cause substantial harm to the applicant. Furthermore, the court held that the Intervenor was subject to costs orders, taking into account the principles governing costs in cases of intervention and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.
The final orders included suppression and non-publication orders regarding the naming of the schools, as sought by the applicant. Additionally, the court ordered the Intervenor to pay the costs of the applicant and the entity, taking into account the factors outlined above.