Legal Research
Cases
Wilson v Basson

Wilson v Basson

Case [2020] NSWSC 512 8 May 2020

Suppression and non-publication

Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v Basson [2020] NSWSC 512
Hearing dates: 4 May 2020
Date of orders: 08 May 2020
Decision date: 08 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1. Until further order of the Court, order pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act), on the grounds set out in s 8(1)(a) and (c) of that Act, prohibiting the publication or disclosure of any information that reveals or tends to reveal the fact that the defendant has given evidence under a pseudonym in earlier criminal proceedings in this Court.
2. Until further order of the Court, order pursuant to s 7 of the Act, on the grounds set out in s 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, prohibiting the publication of any information that reveals or tends to reveal the defendant’s former identity, including, but is not limited to:
(a)   the defendant’s former name;
(b)   the details of the defendant’s former professional career, other than the fact that the defendant is a retired barrister; and
(c)   the present address of the defendant.
3.   Liberty to apply to make any application for further or consequential orders under the Act.
4.   Pursuant to ss 11 and 12 of the Act, orders 1 and 2 above are to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia while these proceedings are on foot and continue thereafter until further order of the Court.
5.   Each party bear its own costs of the notice of motion filed 3 April 2020.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Suppression and non-publication — Orders
Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), ss 6, 7, 8, 9
Cases Cited: AB (A Pseudonym) v R (No 3) (2019) 97 NSWLR 1046; [2019] NSWCCA 46
AB v CD (2018) 93 ALJR 59; [2018] HCA 58
AB v CD (2019) 93 ALJR 321; [2019] HCA 6
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129; [1980] FCA 33
Brown (A Pseudonym) v R (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 69
Commissioner of Police New South Wales v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (2008) 70 NSWLR 643; [2007] NSWCA 366
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46; [2015] HCA 5
D1 v P1 [2012] NSWCA 314
Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Ibrahim (2012) 83 NSWLR 52; [2012] NSWCCA 125
Hamzy v R [2013] NSWCCA 156
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651; [2010] HCA 21
HT v R (2019) 374 ALR 216; [2019] HCA 40
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
John Fairfax Publications v District Court of New South Wales (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; [2004] NSWCA 324

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 Wilson v Basson

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Basson [2020] NSWSC 512
Case: [2020] NSWSC 512
Decision Date: 08 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was asked to consider an application for an order to suppress and non-publish the proceedings of a case. The applicant, Wilson, sought an order to prevent the publication of details relating to a civil case in which they were a party. The respondent, Basson, opposed the application, arguing that there were no grounds for suppression and that the public interest in open justice outweighed any privacy concerns. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had established grounds for suppression and non-publication of the proceedings. The court was required to consider the principles of open justice and the right to privacy, and to determine whether the applicant had shown that publication would result in substantial harm that outweighed the public interest in open justice. The court also had to consider whether the application was made in good faith and whether there were any other factors that should be taken into account.

The court found that the applicant had established grounds for suppression and non-publication. The court held that the applicant's privacy interests were significant and that publication of the proceedings would result in substantial harm. The court also found that the application was made in good faith and that there were no other factors that outweighed the need for suppression and non-publication. The court noted that the public interest in open justice was important, but that it could be outweighed in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the court found that the exceptional circumstances existed and that the applicant's privacy interests were deserving of protection.

The court made an order suppressing and non-publishing the proceedings of the case. The order was made on the basis that publication would result in substantial harm to the applicant and that the need for suppression and non-publication outweighed the public interest in open justice. The court also noted that the order was not a blanket prohibition on publication, but rather a targeted measure designed to protect the applicant's privacy interests. The order was to remain in place until further order of the court.

Orders