Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403

Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403

It was not necessary for the proper administration of justice to make a suppression order as broad as that imposed by Tobias AJA, and the mere existence of a confidentiality agreement between parties was not a sufficient basis to override the primary objective of open justice. Suppression orders require strict necessity and must not be based solely on convenience or party agreement. The orders appealed from gave too much emphasis to contractual confidentiality and insufficient regard to open justice, and therefore should be discharged.

Parties
Applicant (first Set): Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Applicant (first Set): Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Applicant (first Set): Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary: Hope Rinehart Welker; Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary: John Langley Hancock; Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary: Bianca Hope Rinehart; First Opponent/trustee: Gina Hope Rinehart; Second Opponent/defendant Beneficiary: Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Review/discharge of Suppression Order in Interlocutory Appellate Context / Court of Appeal Review (three Judges) of Suppression Order by Single Judge of Appeal
Outcome
Suppression orders discharged
Legal Topics
Suppression and Non Publication Orders, Open Justice, Statutory Interpretation, Confidentiality in Court Proceedings
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts Media Law Suppression and Non Publication Orders Open Justice Statutory Interpretation Confidentiality in Court Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 48 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Applicant (first Set)

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Applicant (first Set)

Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Applicant (first Set)

Hope Rinehart Welker

Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary

John Langley Hancock

Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary

Bianca Hope Rinehart

Applicant (second Set)/plaintiff Beneficiary

Gina Hope Rinehart

First Opponent/trustee

Ginia Hope Frances Rinehart

Second Opponent/defendant Beneficiary

Procedural Posture

Application for Review/discharge of Suppression Order in Interlocutory Appellate Context / Court of Appeal Review (three Judges) of Suppression Order by Single Judge of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suppression order made under s 8(1)(a) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice
  2. 2 Scope and application of the CSPO Act regarding confidentiality agreements and open justice
  3. 3 Nature and limits of the open justice principle

Ratio Decidendi

It was not necessary for the proper administration of justice to make a suppression order as broad as that imposed by Tobias AJA, and the mere existence of a confidentiality agreement between parties was not a sufficient basis to override the primary objective of open justice. Suppression orders require strict necessity and must not be based solely on convenience or party agreement. The orders appealed from gave too much emphasis to contractual confidentiality and insufficient regard to open justice, and therefore should be discharged.

Court Disposition

Suppression orders discharged

Orders

  • Discharge orders 1, 2 and 3 made by Tobias AJA on 31 October 2011
  • Order that the defendants pay the applicants' costs of the review and of the hearing before Tobias AJA