Secretary, Department of Justice and Regulation v Zhong (No 2)

In this matter, the respondent, a person involved in legal proceedings, sought to have their name anonymised in published reasons and to restrict access to the court file. This application followed from a previous case where a pseudonym was used. In the current proceedings, the applicants did not oppose the order. The central legal issue before the court was whether it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the anonymisation of the respondent's name and restrict access to the court file. The court examined if such an order was necessary to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice, considering the precedent set by earlier orders and the broader implications of such a decision.

The court held that while pseudonym orders could be made under the exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction, the application did not naturally fit into the established categories for which such orders were commonly made. It noted that the mere embarrassment, distress, or invasion of privacy experienced by the respondent was not sufficient grounds for making a pseudonym order. The court referred to the case of ABC v D1; Ex parte The Herald & Weekly Times Limited [2007] VSC 480, where it was held that the court is not bound to make a pseudonym order simply because of earlier orders in similar circumstances. Consequently, the court found that there was no proper basis for the pseudonym order in this case.

The court ultimately dismissed the respondent's application for the anonymisation of their name and the restriction of access to the court file. The reasoning was that the order was not necessary to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice, and the court was not compelled to follow earlier orders in similar cases without a compelling reason. This decision underscored the need for careful consideration of the necessity for such orders in the interest of justice.