Quach v RU (No 3)

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.