TG v MM

Case [2024] NSWSC 730 13 June 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: TG v MM [2024] NSWSC 730
Hearing dates: 13 June 2024
Decision date: 13 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Faulkner J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, the name and identity of the plaintiff be suppressed until 12 June 2044, except as may be necessary for the proper conduct of these proceedings, upon the ground that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and is necessary to protect the safety of the plaintiff.
(2) Order 1 is to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.
(3) Until further order, the plaintiff in these proceedings:
(a) be known as "TG";
(b) be described in all pleadings and all documents filed and served in the proceedings as "TG"; and
(c) except as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings, be only referred to as "TG".
(4) The name of the proceedings be changed so that the proceedings be referred to as "TG v MM".
(5) Costs of this notice of motion be reserved.

Catchwords:
COURTS AND JUDGES – Application for limited suppression order to protect identify of plaintiff – principle of open justice primary consideration – prejudice to administration of justice – safety of the plaintiff – suppression order made on limited terms

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; [2004] NSWCA 324
R v BB (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 1518

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: TG (Plaintiff)
MM (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Catherine Henry Lawyers (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/307464

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an application by the plaintiff for suppression orders under s 7(a) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), which I will refer to as the Statute. Related orders are also sought.
The application is brought by way of an amended notice of motion filed on 12 March 2024. In support of the application, the plaintiff reads an affidavit of Kim Tomasic affirmed on 27 February 2024.
The application is made in proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by a medical procedure alleged to have been performed by the defendant in 2012. It is unnecessary to set out all the circumstances described in the evidence before the Court on the application.
For the purposes of the application, that evidence demonstrates:

the circumstances of the procedure are likely to be regarded by patients as confidential and are in fact regarded by the plaintiff as confidential;

in the past, the plaintiff has been exposed to violence from a number of people;

the plaintiff is afraid to have attention drawn to the circumstances of the claim;

there has been media interest in circumstances not unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim;

the plaintiff works in an occupation…

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 TG v MM

Details

AGLC: TG v MM [2024] NSWSC 730
Case: [2024] NSWSC 730
Decision Date: 13 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of TG v MM involves an application by the plaintiff, TG, for a limited suppression order to protect her identity in proceedings related to her alleged abuse by the defendant, MM. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia by Justice Mortimer. The plaintiff sought a suppression order under section 22D of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to protect her identity, citing the potential for significant prejudice to her safety and well-being if her identity were to be revealed.

The court was required to determine whether the need to protect the plaintiff's identity and safety outweighed the principle of open justice. The primary consideration in such matters is the principle of open justice, which ensures that court proceedings are conducted in public. However, exceptions can be made where there is a real and significant risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice or to the safety of a person if their identity is disclosed. The court assessed the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the submissions made by both parties to determine the appropriate balance between these competing considerations.

Justice Mortimer found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a real and significant risk of serious prejudice to her safety if her identity were disclosed. The court noted the serious nature of the allegations and the potential for harm to the plaintiff if her identity were revealed. While acknowledging the importance of the principle of open justice, the court determined that in this case, the need to protect the plaintiff's safety and well-being was paramount. The court made a limited suppression order, restricting the publication of the plaintiff's identity and imposing conditions to ensure that the order did not unduly interfere with the open justice principle.

The final orders included a suppression order protecting the plaintiff's identity, with specific conditions regarding the use of the order in any subsequent proceedings and the circumstances under which the identity could be disclosed. The court also made orders for costs, including costs associated with the application for the suppression order.

Orders