Quach v RU (No 3) - [2017] ACTSC 258

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Quach v RU (No 3)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 258
Hearing Date:	Determined on the papers
Last submissions received:	23 August 2017
DecisionDate:	14 September 2017
Before:	Penfold ACJ
Decision:	1. The identities of the appellant and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission may be published in this and the judgments identified respectively as [2017] ACTSC 233 and [2017] ACTSC 234; and 2. It is permissible to circulate information concerning the proceedings in which those judgments were given, other than information disclosing the identity of the respondent to the appeal.
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) taken to have been made under Personal Violence Act 2016 (ACT) – whether publication of parties’ names is in the public interest – substantial volume of litigation instituted by appellant in ACT and NSW courts – public interest in other courts being able to identify litigation involving appellant – no basis for protecting identity of public authority criticised in earlier judgment – respondent to appellant’s protection order application involved only as employee of public authority performing her functions as such – identity to be protected.
Legislation Cited:	Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) Personal Violence Act 2016 (ACT) ss 98, 99, 99(2)(a), 199
Cases Cited:	GJ v AS [2011] ACTSC 119 Quach v RU (No 1) [2017] ACTSC 233 Quach v RU (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 234
Parties:	Michael Van Thanh Quach (Appellant) RU (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Unrepresented (Appellant) Mr B Thomson (Respondent)
Solicitors Unrepresented (Appellant) NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 36 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Morrison Date of Decision: 13 April 2016 Case Title: Dr Michael Van Thanh Quach v [RU] Court File Number: [RO 16/177]

Background

On 13 April 2016, Magistrate Morrison dismissed the appellant’s application for a personal protection order against a solicitor employed by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC).

On 21 August 2017 I handed down two decisions in this matter, one relating to a contempt application made by the appellant in respect of the HCCC’s failure to comply with a subpoena issued in the appeal ([2017] ACTSC 233), and the other being my decision on the appeal ([2017] ACTSC 234).

In judgments published to the parties, no party’s name was disguised. However, for reasons set out below, it seemed that unless otherwise ordered, the names of the parties would need to be anonymised before there was any wider publication of the judgments.

When the earlier decisions were handed down, I indicated a preliminary view that in this case there might be a public interest in publishing the names of one or more of the parties, and I invited the parties to make submissions about that issue.

So far, the earlier judgments have not been published to anyone except the parties.

Grounds of appeal

[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 Quach v RU (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Quach v RU (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 258
Case: [2017] ACTSC 258
Decision Date: 14 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Quach v RU (No 3) involved the appellant, Quach, and the respondent, RU, which was the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission. The dispute centred around the publication of the parties' names in relation to an application under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was tasked with determining whether the publication of the parties' names was in the public interest.

The court had to decide if the substantial volume of litigation instituted by the appellant in the ACT and NSW courts justified the public interest in other courts being able to identify litigation involving the appellant. Additionally, the court considered whether there was any basis for protecting the identity of the public authority criticised in an earlier judgment. The court was also required to determine if the respondent, who was involved only as an employee of the public authority performing her functions as such, should have her identity protected.

The Supreme Court found that the identities of the appellant and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission could be published in the judgments identified as [2017] ACTSC 233 and [2017] ACTSC 234, respectively. The court concluded that there was no basis for protecting the identity of the public authority criticised in the earlier judgment, and the respondent, as an employee of the public authority, should have her identity protected.

In light of the above findings, the court made orders permitting the circulation of information concerning the proceedings in which those judgments were given, with the exception of information that disclosed the identity of the respondent to the appeal. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the public interest in transparency with the need to protect individuals' privacy and the integrity of the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The identities of the appellant and the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission may be published in this and the judgments identified respectively as [2017] ACTSC 233 and [2017] ACTSC 234; and

2. It is permissible to circulate information concerning the proceedings in which those judgments were given, other than information disclosing the identity of the respondent to the appeal.

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.