PVYW v Comcare Australia

Case [2011] FCA 535


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PVYW v Comcare Australia [2011] FCA 535

Citation: PVYW v Comcare Australia [2011] FCA 535
Appeal from: Appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Parties: PVYW v COMCARE AUSTRALIA
File number: NSD 1761 of 2010
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 20 May 2011
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression of applicant’s name – s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – consideration of principle of open justice – whether suppression necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice – applicant suffering psychological injuries –applicant will not continue proceeding if name not suppressed –proceeding involves matters of statutory interpretation based upon agreed facts – application not motivated by simple desire to avoid embarrassment or ridicule – order made to suppress applicant’s name
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50(1)
Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth) s 35(2)   
Cases cited: Attorney-General (NSW) v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2007) 73 NSWLR 635
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 29 ALR 228
Commission of Taxation v H (2010) 268 ALR 101
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd(No 2) [2010] FCAFC 118
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission& Ors (2010) 240 CLR 651
X v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (2007) 226 CLR 630
Date of hearing: 17 May 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 24
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr LT Grey
Solicitor for the Applicant: Pappas, J. – Attorney
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1761 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

PVYW
Applicant

AND:

COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 MAY 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to Section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and subject to any further order or direction of the Court:

(a)publication of the true name and address of the applicant, as described in confidential exhibit EX1 to the Affidavit of Nigel John Gabbedy affirmed 9 February 2011, be forbidden;

(b)this proceeding continue on the basis that the applicant be identified by the pseudonym “PVYW” in all documents filed in relation to the appeal, or generated by the Court Registry, and in the Reasons for Decision ultimately given by the Court.  

2.There be no order as to the costs of the applicant’s notice of motion.

3.The proceeding is to stand over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with the associate to Nicholas J.   

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1761 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

PVYW
Applicant

AND:

COMCARE…

Continue reading PVYW v Comcare Australia

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
PVYW v Comcare Australia [2011] FCA 535
Case
[2011] FCA 535
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

PVYW sought an order to suppress their name in proceedings against Comcare Australia. The applicant, who suffered psychological injuries, was concerned that if their identity was not suppressed, they would discontinue the litigation. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, and the key issue was whether the suppression of the applicant’s name was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, as per section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

The court needed to consider the principle of open justice and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted suppressing the applicant’s name. The applicant argued that the suppression was not motivated by a desire to avoid embarrassment or ridicule but was essential to prevent them from discontinuing the case. The court also noted that the proceeding involved statutory interpretation based on agreed facts, which would not be prejudiced by the use of a pseudonym.

The court found that the applicant’s psychological condition was a significant factor that warranted the suppression of their identity. The court recognised that discontinuing the litigation would be detrimental, and the use of a pseudonym would not prejudice the administration of justice. Consequently, the court made an order to suppress the applicant’s name, allowing the proceedings to continue under the pseudonym "PVYW." The court also decided not to order any costs for the applicant’s notice of motion and directed that the matter be stood over until a date was arranged with the associate to Nicholas J.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to Section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and subject to any further order or direction of the Court:

(a) publication of the true name and address of the applicant, as described in confidential exhibit EX1 to the Affidavit of Nigel John Gabbedy affirmed 9 February 2011, be forbidden;

(b) this proceeding continue on the basis that the applicant be identified by the pseudonym “PVYW” in all documents filed in relation to the appeal, or generated by the Court Registry, and in the Reasons for Decision ultimately given by the Court.

2. There be no order as to the costs of the applicant’s notice of motion.

3. The proceeding is to stand over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with the associate to Nicholas J.

Note:

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.