Gersbach v Gersbach (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 762

Gersbach v Gersbach (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 762

The defendant did not establish necessity for a suppression or non-publication order under any ground in s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) or under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, particularly given the principle of open justice, extensive pre-existing publicity, and lack of compelling evidence justifying curtailment of publication.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Jayne Ellen Gersbach; Defendant/applicant: Rodney John Gersbach
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Suppression/non Publication Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication Orders, Open Justice, Psychological Harm, Sexual Assault Allegations
Procedure Civil Justice Suppression Orders Non Publication Orders Open Justice Psychological Harm Sexual Assault Allegations

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jayne Ellen Gersbach

Plaintiff/respondent

Rodney John Gersbach

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Suppression/non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a suppression order or non-publication order should be granted under the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the test of necessity is met for limiting open justice
  3. 3 Whether inherent jurisdiction justifies granting orders to protect psychological wellbeing

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not establish necessity for a suppression or non-publication order under any ground in s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) or under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, particularly given the principle of open justice, extensive pre-existing publicity, and lack of compelling evidence justifying curtailment of publication.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The amended notice of motion of the defendant is dismissed.
  • The defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff of the proceedings before me.