Wotton v State of Queensland (No 3) [2015] FCA 1074

Wotton v State of Queensland (No 3) [2015] FCA 1074

The application was refused because no evidence supported the need for closure or suppression, the proposed orders were too wide and vague, the proceeding was a class action concerning matters of substantial public interest, the damages evidence should be publicly given, and the Court was not satisfied that public presence was contrary to the interests of justice or that any ground in s 37AG was made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Class Action; Application for Closure of the Court and Suppression or Non Publication Orders / Reasons for Rulings on the Applicants' Oral Application
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['open Justice' 'closure of the Court' 'suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'psychological Condition Evidence' 'class Action']
['practice and Procedure'] ['open Justice' 'closure of the Court' 'suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'psychological Condition Evidence' 'class Action']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class Action; Application for Closure of the Court and Suppression or Non Publication Orders / Reasons for Rulings on the Applicants' Oral Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should be closed during evidence concerning the psychological condition of the First and Third Applicants.' 'Whether suppression or non-publication orders should be made in respect of evidence concerning the psychological condition of the First and Third Applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because no evidence supported the need for closure or suppression, the proposed orders were too wide and vague, the proceeding was a class action concerning matters of substantial public interest, the damages evidence should be publicly given, and the Court was not satisfied that public presence was contrary to the interests of justice or that any ground in s 37AG was made out.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' oral application for closure of the Court and certain suppression orders as set out in the applicants' proposed minute of order dated 27 September 2015 be refused."]