Smith v Blanch

In Smith v Blanch, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an application by Stephanie Blanch for suppression and non-publication orders concerning information relating to her employment, occupation, residential address, and financial position. Ms Blanch, a transgender woman, sought these orders on the basis that she had been targeted by an activist group, Binary Australia, and that disclosure of this information would prejudice the proper administration of justice and endanger her safety. The court also considered an application by Ms Blanch for a protective costs order.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed suppression and non-publication orders were "necessary to protect the safety of any person" or "necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice" under sections 7 and 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to determine the factors relevant to making a protective costs order under rule 42.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), specifically whether Ms Blanch's application was brought in the public interest.

The court reasoned that the orders were necessary to protect Ms Blanch's safety and to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, given the evidence of her being targeted. Consequently, the court made orders pursuant to sections 7(a) and (c) and 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, prohibiting the publication or disclosure of information identifying Ms Blanch's employment, occupation, residential address, or financial position. These orders were to apply for a period of two years throughout Australia. The court also granted leave to Ms Blanch to amend her notice of motion and refused the applicant's request for an adjournment.

Furthermore, the court made a protective costs order pursuant to rule 42.4(1) of the UCPR, specifying that the maximum costs recoverable by the applicant, Kirralee Smith, from the respondent, Stephanie Blanch, was nil. The court also extended the time for the applicant to file submissions in reply and made no order as to the costs of the motion.