Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 45

Welker & Ors v Rinehart & Anor (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 45

A general prospect that publicity about proceedings involving persons with a significant public profile may attract unwelcome attention or undesirable people is not sufficient to establish that suppression or non-publication is necessary to protect safety under s 8(1)(c). The affidavits did not identify a specific threat or explain how publication of the material would create a particular safety risk, and material already in the public domain could not be shown to require suppression for safety. However, publication of information identifying where parties reside or how they may be contacted should be prohibited to protect safety.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Suppression or Non Publication Order / Interlocutory Application in the Equity Division Duty List
Outcome
Application for broader suppression or non-publication orders refused, except for an order prohibiting publication of information identifying where any party resides or how any party can be contacted.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety of Persons' 'interim Suppression Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety of Persons' 'interim Suppression 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

Application for Suppression or Non Publication Order / Interlocutory Application in the Equity Division Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a further suppression or non-publication order should be made under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Act 2010 (NSW) on the ground in s 8(1)(c) that the order was necessary to protect the safety of any person.' 'Whether the application should be treated as an interim application under s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Act 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether material filed in support of the motion, including affidavits of Mr McCann and Mr Humphreys, should be suppressed or made subject to non-publication.']

Ratio Decidendi

A general prospect that publicity about proceedings involving persons with a significant public profile may attract unwelcome attention or undesirable people is not sufficient to establish that suppression or non-publication is necessary to protect safety under s 8(1)(c). The affidavits did not identify a specific threat or explain how publication of the material would create a particular safety risk, and material already in the public domain could not be shown to require suppression for safety. However, publication of information identifying where parties reside or how they may be contacted should be prohibited to protect safety.

Court Disposition

Application for broader suppression or non-publication orders refused, except for an order prohibiting publication of information identifying where any party resides or how any party can be contacted.

Orders

  • ['No order made in the terms sought by Mrs Rinehart or Ms Ginia Rinehart, except as to residential and contact information.' 'An order should be made under s 7 on the ground set out in s 8(1)(c) that there be no publication of any information which would identify where any of the parties to the proceedings reside or...