SRGF v Comcare - [2025] FCA 637

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SRGF v Comcare [2025] FCA 637

File number: ACD 39 of 2024

Judgment of: KENNETT J

Date of judgment: 17 June 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders – application for filing of additional submissions – application seeking recusal or referral of proceeding to the Chief Justice for consideration of whether it should be heard by Full Court

Legislation:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 35, 44

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) Sch 16 item 25

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 37AE, 37AF, 37AG; former s 50; Pt VAA Div 2, Pt VAAA

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55ZF, 55ZG

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3)

Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth) App B

Cases cited:
Commissioner of Taxation v [Respondent] [2023] FCA 1176

Herald & Weekly Times Limited v Gregory D Williams (formerly identified as VAI) [2003] FCAFC 217; 130 FCR 435

Keyzer v La Trobe University [2019] FCA 646

Ogawa v President of the Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCAFC 160; 294 FCR 221

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15; 279 CLR 148

White v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 185

Chami Z, “The Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant” (2010) AIAL Forum No 64

Division: General Division

Registry: Australian Capital Territory

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 48

Date of last submission: 8 April 2025

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Counsel for the applicant: The applicant is a litigant in person

Counsel for the respondent: K L Bradey

Solicitor for the respondent: Moray & Agnew

ORDERS

ACD 39 of 2024

BETWEEN:
SRGF
Applicant

AND: COMCARE
Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

KENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.On the ground set out in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth):
(a)the applicant is to be referred to by the pseudonym SRGF in all documents relating to this proceeding; and
(b)any information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant is not to be published or otherwise disclosed to any person other than:
(i)the Court and its staff; and
(ii)the parties and their legal representatives.

2.The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 9 March 2025 be dismissed.
3.The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 8 April 2025 be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KENNETT J:

The applicant resigned from the Australian Public Service (APS) in December 2021 after a decline in his mental health. It appears that he had last worked in May 2020. He submitted claims for workers’ compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act) on 1 April 2022 and 11 December 2022. The first claim…

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 SRGF v Comcare

Details

AGLC: SRGF v Comcare [2025] FCA 637
Case: [2025] FCA 637
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SRGF v Comcare involved an application for suppression and non-publication orders, and additional submissions, from a litigant seeking anonymity in a proceeding before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, referred to as SRGF, sought to conceal their identity and certain information from the public and parties not directly involved in the case. This matter also included applications for the recusal of a judge or a referral to the Chief Justice for consideration of a Full Court hearing.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's right to privacy and protection from potential harm outweighed the public's right to access information about court proceedings. The issues before the court also included the appropriateness of filing additional submissions and the validity of seeking recusal or referral for a Full Court hearing. The court had to balance the applicant's concerns with the principles of open justice and transparency inherent in the judicial system.

In its decision, the court found that the applicant's right to privacy was not sufficiently compelling to warrant the suppression of their identity and the non-disclosure of certain information. The court held that the applicant's concerns did not meet the threshold set by section 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which permits anonymity in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, the court dismissed the interlocutory applications for additional submissions and recusal, finding them to be without merit. Consequently, the applicant was only granted pseudonymous reference in court documents and limited disclosure of their identity to essential parties and staff.

The final orders of the court mandated that SRGF be referred to by the pseudonym in all documents related to the proceeding, and any information revealing their identity was not to be disclosed except to specified individuals. The interlocutory applications filed by the applicant on 9 March 2025 and 8 April 2025 were dismissed. The entry of these orders followed Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On the ground set out in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth):

(a) the applicant is to be referred to by the pseudonym SRGF in all documents relating to this proceeding; and

(b) any information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant is not to be published or otherwise disclosed to any person other than:

(i) the Court and its staff; and

(ii) the parties and their legal representatives.

2. The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 9 March 2025 be dismissed.

3. The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 8 April 2025 be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

File number:	ACD 39 of 2024
Judgment of:	KENNETT J
Date of judgment:	17 June 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for suppression and non-publication orders – application for filing of additional submissions – application seeking recusal or referral of proceeding to the Chief Justice for consideration of whether it should be heard by Full Court
Legislation:	Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 35, 44 Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) Sch 16 item 25 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 37AE, 37AF, 37AG; former s 50; Pt VAA Div 2, Pt VAAA Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55ZF, 55ZG Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 7(2), 7(3) Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth) App B
Cases cited:	Commissioner of Taxation v [Respondent] [2023] FCA 1176 Herald & Weekly Times Limited v Gregory D Williams (formerly identified as VAI) [2003] FCAFC 217; 130 FCR 435 Keyzer v La Trobe University [2019] FCA 646 Ogawa v President of the Australian Human Rights Commission [2022] FCAFC 160; 294 FCR 221 QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 15; 279 CLR 148 White v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 185 Chami Z, “The Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant” (2010) AIAL Forum No 64
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Australian Capital Territory
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	48
Date of last submission:	8 April 2025
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Counsel for the applicant:	The applicant is a litigant in person
Counsel for the respondent:	K L Bradey
Solicitor for the respondent:	Moray & Agnew

ACD 39 of 2024
BETWEEN:	SRGF Applicant
AND:	COMCARE Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	KENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JUNE 2025