Seraphim v Houda - [2024] NSWCATAD 341

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Seraphim v Houda [2024] NSWCATAD 341
Hearing dates: 21 October 2024
Date of orders: 1 November 2024
Decision date: 01 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President
K Stubbs, General Member
Decision:
1. Under s 49(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is to be conducted wholly in private.
2. Under s 64(1)(c ) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of any evidence given before the Tribunal or evidentiary material contained in documents before the Tribunal in the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is prohibited.
Following the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, the Tribunal made the following orders:
3. None of the Respondent’s applications for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024 is granted.
4. Ms Seraphim is to file and serve any application for costs by 1 November 2024.
5. The proceedings are stood over for further directions by AVL on 3 December 2024 at 10 am.
Note 1: the Respondent has indicated that it may appeal Order 3 above and the Tribunal has agreed to provide written reasons for that decision. To preserve the confidentiality of the information the subject of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, Orders 1 and 2 continue in effect pending further order of the Tribunal.
Note 2: there is no direction for the Respondent to reply to any application for costs until directed to do so by the Tribunal.
Following the decision of the Appeal Panel in Houda v Seraphim [2025] NSWCATAP 135 the Tribunal makes the following further order:
6. Order 2 is set aside.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Hearings – Suppression and non-publication – where Respondent to proceedings under the Anti-Discrimination Act seeks to have hearing held in private and publication of evidence prohibited – whether it is “desirable” to make those orders

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bettington v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAP 110
Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46; [2015] HCA 5
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA [2021] NSWCA 339
Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Hana Seraphim (Applicant)
Adam Houda (First Respondent)
Lawyers Corp Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Counsel:
M Thangaraj SC/C Parkin (First and Second Respondents)
Solicitors:
Murphy’s Lawyers Inc (First and Second Respondents)

File Number(s): 2024/00104051
Publication restriction: See Orders 2 and 6 above.
Note: The combined effect of these orders is that there are no restrictions on the publication of any…

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 Seraphim v Houda

Details

AGLC: Seraphim v Houda [2024] NSWCATAD 341
Case: [2024] NSWCATAD 341
Decision Date: 01 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seraphim v Houda involved a dispute before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Australia. The Respondent sought to have a hearing held in private and to prohibit the publication of evidence presented in the proceedings. The matter was under the Anti-Discrimination Act and pertained to an application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024. The Respondent argued that such orders were desirable to protect sensitive information and privacy concerns.

The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to make the orders requested by the Respondent. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether conducting the hearing in private and prohibiting the publication of evidence would serve the interests of justice and be desirable in the circumstances. The legal issues centred on the balance between the public’s right to know and the Respondent’s right to privacy and protection of sensitive information.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024 was not granted in its entirety, but it did order that the hearing be conducted wholly in private and that the publication of any evidence or evidentiary material be prohibited. This was to protect the confidentiality of the information in question. However, following an appeal and subsequent decision by the Appeal Panel in Houda v Seraphim [2025] NSWCATAP 135, the Tribunal set aside the order prohibiting publication. The court’s decision reflected a careful consideration of the need for privacy and the public interest in transparency.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Under s 49(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is to be conducted wholly in private.

2. Under s 64(1)(c ) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of any evidence given before the Tribunal or evidentiary material contained in documents before the Tribunal in the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is prohibited.

Following the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, the Tribunal made the following orders:

3. None of the Respondent’s applications for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024 is granted.

4. Ms Seraphim is to file and serve any application for costs by 1 November 2024.

5. The proceedings are stood over for further directions by AVL on 3 December 2024 at 10 am.

Note 1: the Respondent has indicated that it may appeal Order 3 above and the Tribunal has agreed to provide written reasons for that decision. To preserve the confidentiality of the information the subject of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, Orders 1 and 2 continue in effect pending further order of the Tribunal.

Note 2: there is no direction for the Respondent to reply to any application for costs until directed to do so by the Tribunal.

Following the decision of the Appeal Panel in Houda v Seraphim [2025] NSWCATAP 135 the Tribunal makes the following further order:

6. Order 2 is set aside.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Seraphim v Houda [2024] NSWCATAD 341
Hearing dates:	21 October 2024
Date of orders:	1 November 2024
Decision date:	01 November 2024
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President K Stubbs, General Member
Decision:	1. Under s 49(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is to be conducted wholly in private. 2. Under s 64(1)(c ) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of any evidence given before the Tribunal or evidentiary material contained in documents before the Tribunal in the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is prohibited. Following the hearing of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, the Tribunal made the following orders: 3. None of the Respondent’s applications for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024 is granted. 4. Ms Seraphim is to file and serve any application for costs by 1 November 2024. 5. The proceedings are stood over for further directions by AVL on 3 December 2024 at 10 am. Note 1: the Respondent has indicated that it may appeal Order 3 above and the Tribunal has agreed to provide written reasons for that decision. To preserve the confidentiality of the information the subject of the Respondents’ application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, Orders 1 and 2 continue in effect pending further order of the Tribunal. Note 2: there is no direction for the Respondent to reply to any application for costs until directed to do so by the Tribunal. Following the decision of the Appeal Panel in Houda v Seraphim [2025] NSWCATAP 135 the Tribunal makes the following further order: 6. Order 2 is set aside.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Hearings – Suppression and non-publication – where Respondent to proceedings under the Anti-Discrimination Act seeks to have hearing held in private and publication of evidence prohibited – whether it is “desirable” to make those orders
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bettington v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAP 110 Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15 Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46; [2015] HCA 5 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA [2021] NSWCA 339 Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403 State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Hana Seraphim (Applicant) Adam Houda (First Respondent) Lawyers Corp Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) Counsel: M Thangaraj SC/C Parkin (First and Second Respondents) Solicitors: Murphy’s Lawyers Inc (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s):	2024/00104051
Publication restriction:	See Orders 2 and 6 above. Note: The combined effect of these orders is that there are no restrictions on the publication of any…