Optus Internet Pty Ltd v Roberts [1999] NSWSC 1285

Optus Internet Pty Ltd v Roberts [1999] NSWSC 1285

The only material supporting the proposed non-publication order was a bald statement that the third defendant was sitting for his Higher School Certificate examination and did not wish to be subject to press publicity. That was insufficient to justify making a non-publication order, so the proposed order was struck from the consent minutes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Non Publication Order
Outcome
Application for non publication order refused.
Legal Topics
['proceedings in Open Court or in Camera' 'publication of Orders' 'non Publication Order' 'interlocutory Orders']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['proceedings in Open Court or in Camera' 'publication of Orders' 'non Publication Order' 'interlocutory Orders']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make an order that the name of the third defendant not be published under s 80 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.' 'Whether the third defendant sitting for Higher School Certificate examinations and not wishing to be subject to press publicity was a sufficient basis for a non-publication order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The only material supporting the proposed non-publication order was a bald statement that the third defendant was sitting for his Higher School Certificate examination and did not wish to be subject to press publicity. That was insufficient to justify making a non-publication order, so the proposed order was struck from the consent minutes.

Court Disposition

Application for non publication order refused.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 of the short minutes, "The name of the third defendant not to be published," was struck from the short minutes.' 'Otherwise, orders were made in accordance with the short minutes initialled by the judge and placed with the papers, on the basis that the plaintiffs proffered the usual undertaking as to...