Anon -V- Anon (No. 2) [1997] NSWEOT

Anon -V- Anon (No. 2) [1997] NSWEOT

The Tribunal refused to lift the suppression order because the firm of lawyers had not been given a real opportunity to respond, section 110A(1)(b) made release inappropriate in the circumstances, lifting the order as to the law firm could lead to identification of the Complainant and Respondent who were minors at the time of the incidents, and the order should remain pending completion of any investigations which may take place.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Complaint Alleging Homosexuality Discrimination in the Area of Education; Application to Lift Suppression Order / Decision on Application to Lift Suppression Order
Outcome
Application to lift the suppression order refused; suppression order continued.
Legal Topics
['homosexuality Discrimination in Education' 'publication and Disclosure Restrictions' 'identification of Minors' 'lifting Suppression Orders']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'education Law' 'suppression Orders'] ['homosexuality Discrimination in Education' 'publication and Disclosure Restrictions' 'identification of Minors' 'lifting 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

Complaint Alleging Homosexuality Discrimination in the Area of Education; Application to Lift Suppression Order / Decision on Application to Lift Suppression Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the suppression order should be lifted insofar as it related to the name of the firm of lawyers representing the Complainant.' 'Whether lifting that part of the suppression order could lead to identification of the Complainant and Respondent.' 'Whether it was appropriate to lift the suppression order pending completion of any investigations which may take place.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to lift the suppression order because the firm of lawyers had not been given a real opportunity to respond, section 110A(1)(b) made release inappropriate in the circumstances, lifting the order as to the law firm could lead to identification of the Complainant and Respondent who were minors at the time of the incidents, and the order should remain pending completion of any investigations which may take place.

Court Disposition

Application to lift the suppression order refused; suppression order continued.

Orders

  • ['The suppression order continues in relation to the firm of lawyers representing the Complainant and the parties involved in the proceedings.' 'The Tribunal is not prepared to lift the suppression order insofar as it relates to the name of the firm of lawyers representing the Complainant.']