Woodside Energy Ltd & Ors v Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy; Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd & Ors

The High Court of Australia heard applications by Woodside Energy Ltd and other parties (applicants) and cross-applications by the Electricity Generation Corporation trading as Verve Energy (respondent). The applicants sought orders to suppress and restrict publication of and access to certain commercially sensitive information contained within documents filed in the proceedings. This information related to gas prices, volumes, and contract durations, which the applicants were already restricted from disclosing under a "ring fencing protocol" mandated by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission authorisations for their joint gas marketing activities. The respondent consented to the making of the orders sought.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the requested suppression and non-publication orders were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and how to reconcile such orders with the statutory entitlement of news publishers to appear and be heard under section 77RG(2)(d) of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth). The Court also considered the principle of open justice and the limited circumstances in which it can be departed from, referencing established case law. A further consideration was whether the courts below had been obliged to address the specific requirements of section 77RG(2)(d) of the *Judiciary Act*.

The Court expressed reservations about making final suppression orders, particularly given the lack of notification to news publishers as required by section 77RG(2)(d) and the absence of a clear demonstration that the administration of justice would be rendered impracticable without such orders. However, acknowledging the commercial sensitivity of the information and the prior assurances given to the parties by lower courts, the Court indicated a willingness to make an interim order. This interim order, made under section 77RH(1) of the *Judiciary Act*, would prevent the joint application book and associated documents from being made available for inspection, other than in a redacted form, until the application for special leave was finally determined. The Court also proposed that certain filed documents, such as applications for special leave and draft notices of appeal, could be replaced with redacted versions on the court file, rather than being entirely suppressed, to maintain a degree of public information.