SPM v LWA

Case [2013] QSC 138

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SPM (acting in his capacity as the duly appointed attorney of LWA) v LWA [2013] QSC 138

PARTIES:

SPM (applicant)

v

LWA (respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3590 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

23 April 2013

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

The terms of the orders are the subject of a non-publication order.

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – JURISDICTION - where applicant sought a non-publication order - whether a non-publication order should be made – where court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction – where court made non-publication order preventing the identification of the respondent but not the substance of the proceeding

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld)

Power of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld)

Fenwick re application of JR Fenwick and Re Charles [2009] NSWSC 530

John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131

Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417

Raybos Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jones [1985] 2 NSWLR 47

COUNSEL:

Brewer CA on behalf of the applicant 
No appearance by the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McMahon Clark Solicitors on behalf of the applicant

No appearance by the respondent

HIS HONOUR:  On Friday, the 19th of April 2013, late in the afternoon I made an order in this matter, the effect of which was to restrain certain activity relating to an attempt to change the power of attorney of the respondent.  The effect of the orders was to effectively impose a status quo arrangement so that the applicant would, in effect, remain the holder of the respondent's power of attorney until the underlying issues in respect of the application could be heard.

Since then, inquiries have been made of the Court whether on that occasion a non-publication order was made.  No such order was made, however, this afternoon the applicant has made an application for a non-publication order.  Some aspects of its application have fallen away.  What has been properly and pragmatically pursued this afternoon is an order that will not prevent the publication of the substance of the proceedings but rather will prevent the publication of information of a kind that would lead to the identification of the respondent.

In Raybos Australia Pty Ltd & Anor v Jones [1985] 2 NSWLR 47 at 55, Kirby P said:

"Many cases report the scrutiny by Courts of statutory provisions designed to derogate from the open administration of justice.  Running through these decisions is a common theme.  It is that, by our tradition, the open administration of justice is the rule.  Statutory derogation from openness is the exception.  In defence of the rules such statutes will usually be strictly and narrowly construed."

In the present proceeding my attention was drawn to certain provisions of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000, however, none of those apply to this Court or this proceeding. In exercising my powers on Friday I said that the power to make…

Continue reading SPM v LWA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SPM (acting in his capacity as the duly appointed attorney of LWA) v LWA [2013] QSC 138
Case
[2013] QSC 138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application by a person identified as SPM, who sought a non-publication order to prevent the identification of another person, referred to as LWA, who was the subject of the proceeding. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant state, where the court was required to consider the appropriate exercise of its jurisdiction in this matter. The primary issue before the court was whether it should exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to make a non-publication order in the circumstances presented. The court had to weigh the competing interests of maintaining the anonymity of the respondent and the public’s right to know the substance of the proceeding.

The court found that while the interests of the respondent in maintaining anonymity were significant, the court's parens patriae jurisdiction could be exercised to make a non-publication order. However, the court was not persuaded that a complete non-publication order was appropriate. Instead, the court decided to make a non-publication order that prevented the identification of the respondent but did not extend to the substance of the proceeding. The court reasoned that this approach balanced the need for privacy with the public interest in the transparency of the judicial process. The court also noted that the non-publication order was made without prejudice to the respondent's right to seek further orders if circumstances changed.

The court's decision reflects a careful consideration of the jurisdiction and the principles governing non-publication orders. The court acknowledged the importance of protecting the identity of the respondent but also recognised the public interest in the disclosure of the proceeding's substance. The non-publication order made by the court was specific in its terms, aiming to achieve a balance between privacy and transparency. The final orders of the court are subject to a non-publication order, which ensures that the terms of these orders remain confidential.

Orders

Orders of the court

The terms of the orders are the subject of a non-publication order.

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.