Legal Research
Cases
Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray

Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray

Case [2021] FCA 1506 30 November 2021

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray [2021] FCA 1506

File number: WAD 250 of 2021

Judgment of: COLVIN J

Date of judgment: 30 November 2021

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - non-party requests for access to court documents - where orders previously made restricting inspection of filed documents without leave - whether order restricting publication of court documents necessary to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice - whether provision of access to court material exposes applicants to republication of material subject of applicants' complaints of misleading or deceptive conduct and defamation - whether irreparable harm to applicants' business reputation if orders restricting access not continued - requests for access to documents allowed

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AE, 37AF, 37AG

Cases cited:
Baptist Union of Queensland - Carinity v Roberts [2015] FCA 1068; (2015) 241 CLR 135

Central Equity Ltd v Chua [1999] FCA 1067

Conway v Fernandez (No 2) [2018] FCA 1975

Cummings v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 325; (2018) 99 NSWLR 173

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

Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651

Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1149; (2015) 241 CLR 397

Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311

Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of last submissions: 18 November 2021 (Applicants)
23 November 2021 (West Australian Newspapers Ltd)
25 November 2021 (Mr M Roddan, Australian Financial Review)

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr ML Bennett

Solicitor for the Applicants: Bennett + Co

Counsel for the Respondents: The Respondents did not appear

Counsel for the Interested Party (West Australian Newspapers Ltd): Mr AV McCarthy

Solicitor the Interested Party (West Australian Newspapers Ltd): Steedman Stagg Lawyers

Counsel for the Interested Party (Mr M Roddan, Australian Financial Review): The Interested Party appeared in person

Counsel for the Interested Party (Ms C Fredenburg, Lawyerly): The Interested Party did not appear

ORDERS

WAD 250 of 2021

BETWEEN:
VULCAN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD

First Applicant

FRANCIS EDWARD BARNABAS WEDIN

Second Applicant

GAVIN JOHN REZOS

Third Applicant

THORSTEN WEIMANN
Fourth Applicant

HORST DIETER KREUTER
Fifth Applicant

AND:
TIMOTHY PATRICK MURRAY

First Respondent

J CAPITAL RESEARCH USA LLC

Second Respondent

WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD

Interested Party

MR M RODDAN, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW

Interested Party

MS C FREDENBURGH, LAWYERLY

Interested Party

ORDER MADE BY:

COLVIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 NOVEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The order made on 8 November 2021 to the effect that no document lodged or filed with the Court in the proceedings shall be made available for inspection without the leave of the Court is vacated.
2.Identified persons be allowed to inspect and make copies of the…

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 Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray

Details

AGLC: Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray [2021] FCA 1506
Case: [2021] FCA 1506
Decision Date: 30 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd, an Australian-based company, brought a case against Murray, the editor of a financial news website, along with other defendants. The dispute centres on allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct and defamation by Murray concerning Vulcan's business and management. Vulcan sought to continue certain orders made previously to restrict access to the court documents filed in the proceeding, arguing that it was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and to protect the company's reputation. The court needed to decide whether the continuation of these orders was necessary to prevent prejudice and irreparable harm to Vulcan’s business reputation.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding access to court documents and the balance between open justice and the protection of parties' interests. It noted that there is a strong public interest in open justice, but also recognised that certain circumstances might warrant restrictions to protect parties from potential harm. The court weighed the need for transparency against the risk of prejudice to Vulcan's reputation if the documents were to be published. It considered whether the provision of access to the court material would expose Vulcan to the republication of the material that was the subject of their complaints.

After considering the arguments presented, the court decided that the order restricting the inspection of filed documents without leave should be vacated. The court concluded that identified persons should be allowed to inspect and make copies of the originating application and statement of claim, finding that the potential for harm to Vulcan's reputation did not outweigh the public interest in open justice. The court determined that the balance had shifted in favour of allowing access, given the specific circumstances of this case.

The court vacated the order restricting the inspection of documents without leave and allowed identified persons to inspect and make copies of the originating application and statement of claim. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between the principles of open justice and the protection of parties' interests in specific contexts.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order made on 8 November 2021 to the effect that no document lodged or filed with the Court in the proceedings shall be made available for inspection without the leave of the Court is vacated.

2. Identified persons be allowed to inspect and make copies of the originating application and statement of claim in these proceedings.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray [2021] FCA 1506

Most Recent Citation

Sun Capital Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited [2024] FCA 47

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Sun Capital Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited
[2024] FCA 47 Para 15

…r for confidentiality made under r 2.32. Wigney J’s statement in Rush was cited with approval by Colvin J in Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd v Murray [2021] FCA 1506 at [5]. Mortimer J came to a similar view in Ferguson v Tasmanian Cricket Association (trading as Cricket Tasmania) [2021] FCA 1507 at [8].…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Cummings v Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd; Cummings v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd
[2018] NSWCA 325 Para 10

…the case of a party is articulated: see the authorities cited with apparent approval in Cummings v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 325; (2018) 99 NSWLR 173 at [126]‑[133] (McColl JA, Beazley P and Simpson AJA agreeing).…
Conway v Fernandez (No 2)
[2018] FCA 1975 Para 13

…003) 130 FCR 435 at [32]‑[37] (Merkel J, Finn and Stone JJ agreeing); and see the authorities collected by Wheelahan J in Conway v Fernandez (No 2) [2018] FCA 1975 at [25]. It is not said that the relevant publications concern matters that are private in nature: compare Baptist Union of Queensland - Carinity v Rob…
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd
[2018] FCA 357 Para 5

…to s 37AF and s 37AG should not apply equally where there is a request made under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth): Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357 at [199].…
Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd
[2015] FCA 1149 Para 12

…which will enable a party to understand what a proceeding is about and how the case for each party is framed: Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1149; (2015) 241 CLR 397 at [24]‑[28] (Mortimer J).…
Baptist Union of Queensland - Carinity v Roberts
[2015] FCA 1068 Para 13

…It is not said that the relevant publications concern matters that are private in nature: compare Baptist Union of Queensland - Carinity v Roberts [2015] FCA 1068; (2015) 241 CLR 135. Nor is it said they concern matters of such a character that it would be offensive to a reasonable person or risk the health or sa…
Rinehart v Welker & Ors
[2012] HCATrans 57 Para 6

…aid that by reason of open justice principles, suppression orders will only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [27].…
Rinehart v Welker
[2011] NSWCA 403 Para 6

…It has also been said that by reason of open justice principles, suppression orders will only be made in exceptional circumstances: Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 at [27].…
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission
[2010] HCA 21 Para 4

…inistration of justice': s 37AG(1)(a). In such a context, 'necessary' is a strong word. As the High Court said in Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651 at [31] of an equivalent provision conferring such a power to be exercised where it was necessary in the interests of the adminis…
Central Equity Ltd v Chua
[1999] FCA 1067 Para 7

…For the applicants, reliance is placed upon Central Equity Ltd v Chua [1999] FCA 1067 at [7]‑[11], [19]-[20] for the proposition that the Court may consider the potential for irreparable pecuniary loss or damage to reputation. They submit that the publications by the respondents on social media about which they co…
Herald & Weekly Times Limited v Gregory D Williams (Formerly Identified As Vai)
[2003] FCAFC 217 Para 13

…are not, of themselves, reasons for the issue of suppression orders: Herald & Weekly Times Limited v Gregory D Williams (formerly identified as VAI) [2003] FCAFC 217; (2003) 130 FCR 435 at [32]‑[37] (Merkel J, Finn and Stone JJ agreeing); and see the authorities collected by Wheelahan J in Conway v Fernandez (No 2…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
37AE, 37AF, 37AG 4 mentions (from Para 4)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 5)

File number:	WAD 250 of 2021
Judgment of:	COLVIN J
Date of judgment:	30 November 2021
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - non-party requests for access to court documents - where orders previously made restricting inspection of filed documents without leave - whether order restricting publication of court documents necessary to prevent prejudice to proper administration of justice - whether provision of access to court material exposes applicants to republication of material subject of applicants' complaints of misleading or deceptive conduct and defamation - whether irreparable harm to applicants' business reputation if orders restricting access not continued - requests for access to documents allowed
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AE, 37AF, 37AG
Cases cited:	Baptist Union of Queensland - Carinity v Roberts [2015] FCA 1068; (2015) 241 CLR 135 Central Equity Ltd v Chua [1999] FCA 1067 Conway v Fernandez (No 2) [2018] FCA 1975 Cummings v Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 325; (2018) 99 NSWLR 173 Herald & Weekly Times Limited v Gregory D Williams (formerly identified as VAI) [2003] FCAFC 217; (2003) 130 FCR 435 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651 Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1149; (2015) 241 CLR 397 Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	17
Date of last submissions:	18 November 2021 (Applicants) 23 November 2021 (West Australian Newspapers Ltd) 25 November 2021 (Mr M Roddan, Australian Financial Review)
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr ML Bennett
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Bennett + Co
Counsel for the Respondents:	The Respondents did not appear
Counsel for the Interested Party (West Australian Newspapers Ltd):	Mr AV McCarthy
Solicitor the Interested Party (West Australian Newspapers Ltd):	Steedman Stagg Lawyers
Counsel for the Interested Party (Mr M Roddan, Australian Financial Review):	The Interested Party appeared in person
Counsel for the Interested Party (Ms C Fredenburg, Lawyerly):	The Interested Party did not appear

WAD 250 of 2021
BETWEEN:	VULCAN ENERGY RESOURCES LTD First Applicant FRANCIS EDWARD BARNABAS WEDIN Second Applicant GAVIN JOHN REZOS Third Applicant THORSTEN WEIMANN Fourth Applicant HORST DIETER KREUTER Fifth Applicant
AND:	TIMOTHY PATRICK MURRAY First Respondent J CAPITAL RESEARCH USA LLC Second Respondent
WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD Interested Party MR M RODDAN, AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL REVIEW Interested Party MS C FREDENBURGH, LAWYERLY Interested Party

ORDER MADE BY:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 NOVEMBER 2021