Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Shane Dowling (No 3)

In the matter of Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales versus Shane Dowling, the dispute involved the enforcement of suppression orders in contempt proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant, the Prothonotary, could rely on an affidavit that contained material that was subject to a suppression order in a prior contempt proceeding. The respondent, Shane Dowling, argued that the suppression order was not a permanent one and that the court should not consider the affidavit in question.

The court examined the nature and purpose of suppression orders, and whether they should be treated as temporary or permanent. It was noted that suppression orders are intended to protect the administration of justice and prevent the dissemination of information that may prejudice the outcome of proceedings. The court found that while suppression orders are temporary, they are binding on the parties and those who are subject to them until the order is varied or discharged. The court concluded that the affidavit containing suppressed material could not be considered in the contempt proceedings as it would breach the terms of the suppression order.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the affidavit in question could not be considered in the contempt proceedings as it would breach the suppression order. The court emphasised that suppression orders are binding on the parties and those subject to them until varied or discharged. The respondent's argument that the suppression order was not permanent was rejected. The final orders of the court were that the affidavit containing suppressed material could not be relied upon in the contempt proceedings, and the matter was to be relisted for further hearing.