FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wilson Security v Gucic [2022] FCA 477
File number: VID 58 of 2022 Judgment of: ANASTASSIOU J Date of judgment: 29 April 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether non-party is entitled to inspect documents pursuant to s 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether principle of open justice is engaged only when the relevant material is “used” or “deployed” in open court – leave refused Legislation: Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 17
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 2.32
Cases cited: Baptist Union of Queensland – Carinity v Roberts [2015] FCA 1068; 241 FCR 135
Brown v Health Services Union (No 4) [2012] FCA 1376
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hawkins [2016] FCA 164; 341 ALR 255
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court (NSW) [2004] NSWCA 324; 61 NSWLR 344
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 15 Date of last submissions: 11 March 2022 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Solicitor for the Defendants: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers ORDERS
VID 58 of 2022 BETWEEN: WILSON SECURITY PTY LTD (ACN 127 406 295)
Plaintiff
AND: MICHAEL GUCIC
First Defendant
CERTIS SECURITY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 003 762 150)
Second Defendant
ORDER MADE BY:
ANASTASSIOU J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 APRIL 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The non-party search request filed by the Australian on 18 February 2022 for leave to inspect the following documents in this proceeding be refused:
(a)the affidavit of Jimmy Li sworn 7 February 2022;
(b)the Plaintiff’s outline of submissions filed on 14 February 2022;
(c)the affidavit of Greg Watson affirmed on 14 February 2022; and
(d)the affidavit of service of Samantha Fitzgerald sworn on 10 February 2022.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ANASTASSIOU J:
On 7 February 2022, the Plaintiff, Wilson Security Pty Ltd, filed proceedings against the Defendants, Mr Michael Gucic and Certis Security Australia Pty Ltd.
Wilson Security is a private security company, which provides a range of security services including security personnel and mobile patrols. Its clients include those operating in the commercial real estate, education, finance and banking, government, healthcare, resources, retail, transport and utilities/telecommunications sectors.
Mr Gucic was formerly employed by Wilson Security as the State Manager of Victoria before commencing employment with Certis Security. It suffices to say that Certis Security is one of Wilson Security’s main commercial competitors.
This proceeding was filed by Wilson Security to restrain the Defendants, among other things, from contravening s 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and from breaching contractual and equitable obligations owed to the Plaintiff.
The Originating process was accompanied by an affidavit of Jimmy Li sworn on 7 February 2022 (7 February 2022 Affidavit).
On 8 February 2022, the matter was referred to me…
Continue reading Wilson Security v Gucic
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wilson Security v Gucic [2022] FCA 477
- Case
- [2022] FCA 477
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the principle of open justice required the non-party to be granted access to inspect the specified documents. The court needed to interpret the scope of section 2.32 of the Federal Court Rules and determine if there were circumstances under which a non-party could be granted such access. The court also considered whether the documents in question were integral to the proceedings in a manner that would engage the principle of open justice. This involved an examination of the nature of the documents and their relevance to the judicial process.
In its reasoning, the court concluded that the principle of open justice was not engaged to the extent that it would permit the non-party to inspect the documents. The court held that the principle of open justice typically applies when material is used or deployed in open court, and this did not appear to be the case with the documents in question. As such, the court refused the non-party's request for leave to inspect the documents. The decision underscored the limited circumstances under which a non-party may be granted such access, reinforcing the balance between maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring transparency.
The final orders of the court were that the non-party's request for leave to inspect the documents was refused. Specifically, the Australian's request to inspect the affidavit of Jimmy Li, the Plaintiff’s outline of submissions, the affidavit of Greg Watson, and the affidavit of service of Samantha Fitzgerald was denied. This decision adhered to the principles outlined in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which governs the entry of orders in such proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The non-party search request filed by the Australian on 18 February 2022 for leave to inspect the following documents in this proceeding be refused:
(a) the affidavit of Jimmy Li sworn 7 February 2022;
(b) the Plaintiff’s outline of submissions filed on 14 February 2022;
(c) the affidavit of Greg Watson affirmed on 14 February 2022; and
(d) the affidavit of service of Samantha Fitzgerald sworn on 10 February 2022.
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.