Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 5) - [2017] VSC 355

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2016 01842

REBEL MELANIE ELIZABETH WILSON	Plaintiff
v
BAUER MEDIA PTY LTD & ANOR	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2017
DATE OF RULING:	21 June 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 355

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application by plaintiff to suppress publication of financial benefits received from film contracts during trial of the proceeding — Whether commercially confidential — Application opposed by media parties — Discretionary considerations — Open Courts Act 2013, s 7, 13, 18(1)(a), 20.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr M Collins QC, with Ms R Enbom and Mr J C Hooper	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
For the Defendant	Ms G Schoff QC, with Mr S Mukerjea	Johnson Winter & Slattery
For the Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd and the Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd	Macpherson Kelley

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff applied for the following order under Section 18(1)(a) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) (the Act), alternatively the inherent jurisdiction of the court, on the grounds that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice:

Disclosure by publication or otherwise is prohibited of the financial benefits that the plaintiff has, will, or may receive under agreements or contracts made after 18 May 2015 in respect of the provision of the plaintiff’s services as an actor including but not limited to agreements in respect of the movies entitled or provisionally entitled ‘Pitch Perfect 3’, ‘Absolutely Fabulous’, ‘Private Benjamin’, ‘Isn’t it Romantic’ and ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’.

The order sought was in the same terms as an interim order that I made on 26 May 2017, save for the addition of a reference to a further movie ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’, which, since the interim order, was referred to in the course of the plaintiff’s cross-examination.

The application was opposed by Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd and the Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd (the media parties). The defendants did not seek to be heard on the application.

Open Courts Act

There is a presumption in favour of disclosure of information to which a court must have regard in determining whether to make a suppression order.[1]
[1]Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic), s 4.

Section 18(1)(a) of the Act gives the court a discretion to make a proceeding suppression order if satisfied that the order is necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means.

The court’s inherent jurisdiction to make a suppression order, arising from its general responsibility as a superior court of unlimited jurisdiction for the administration of justice, is unaffected by the Act.[2]
[2]Madafferi v The Age Company Pty Ltd & Ors (No. 2) (Madafferi) [2016] VSC 103,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilson v Bauer Media (Ruling No 5) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] VSC 355
Decision Date: 21 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the plaintiff, Wilson, and the defendants, Bauer Media. The plaintiff sought to suppress the publication of certain information during the trial of the proceeding, specifically the financial benefits received from film contracts. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the information was not commercially confidential. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the financial benefits received from film contracts were commercially confidential and if the suppression of this information was warranted during the trial of the proceeding. The court needed to consider the relevant provisions of the Open Courts Act 2013, which provide for the suppression of information in certain circumstances.

The court determined that the financial benefits received from film contracts were indeed commercially confidential. However, in weighing the discretionary considerations, the court found that the public interest in open justice outweighed the plaintiff's interest in keeping the information confidential. As a result, the application to suppress the publication of the financial benefits was denied. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of open justice.

No final orders were made in the ruling, as the court found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's application. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the competing interests of commercial confidentiality and open justice in cases involving the suppression of information during legal proceedings.

Orders