Patterson v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2)

Patterson v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) involved an application by the first respondent to have certain documents on the Court file ordered confidential. The parties had settled the proceedings, and the respondents had not filed their pleadings but had brought a strike-out application. The court was required to decide whether such orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court considered the principle of open justice, which is a fundamental principle of the Australian justice system, but also recognised that there are circumstances where it may be necessary to restrict disclosure or publication of information to do justice. The court concluded that an order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court found that the applicants had established that the orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The court noted that the principle of open justice is not the only fundamental principle of the Australian justice system and that Part VAA of the Federal Court Act gives the Court power to make suppression orders. The court considered the relevant authorities and found that the applicants had demonstrated a real risk of substantial prejudice if the documents were not ordered to be confidential. The court concluded that the orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and on the ground that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the following documents filed in the Court were ordered confidential within the meaning of r 2.32(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and their publication and inspection (except to the parties’ legal representatives) were prohibited: (a) Originating Application filed 13 December 2023; (b) Concise Statement filed 13 December 2023; (c) Statement of Claim filed 26 March 2024; (d) Affidavit of Andrew Gray sworn 7 May 2024; (e) Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents’ Interlocutory Application filed 13 May 2024; (f) Amended Originating Application filed 24 May 2024; (g) Amended Statement of Claim filed 24 May 2024; (h) Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents’ outline of submissions filed 4 June 2024; and (i) Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents’ Amended Interlocutory Application filed 4 June 2024. The Proceeding was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs in the Proceeding.