Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 4) [2015] FCA 465

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 4) [2015] FCA 465

Inspection was permitted for the four affidavits that had been read in open court because no confidentiality was raised when they were read, no redaction or confidentiality order was sought, the later assertion of confidentiality was unparticularised, and open justice supported access by non-parties to material treated as read in open court. Inspection of the fifth affidavit was refused because it did not appear to have been read in open court and also exhibited correspondence about discovery, notwithstanding that its transcript component was otherwise inspectable under r 2.32(2)(m).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Third Party Application for Inspection of Affidavits / Heard on the Papers
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
['inspection of Court Documents' 'affidavits Read in Open Court' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality']
['practice and Procedure'] ['inspection of Court Documents' 'affidavits Read in Open Court' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality']

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

Third Party Application for Inspection of Affidavits / Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a third party should be granted leave under rule 2.32(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to inspect five affidavits filed in the proceeding.' 'Whether affidavits that were read in open court should be available for inspection by a non-party despite an unparticularised claim of confidentiality.' 'Whether leave should be granted to inspect an affidavit that was not read in open court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Inspection was permitted for the four affidavits that had been read in open court because no confidentiality was raised when they were read, no redaction or confidentiality order was sought, the later assertion of confidentiality was unparticularised, and open justice supported access by non-parties to material treated as read in open court. Inspection of the fifth affidavit was refused because it did not appear to have been read in open court and also exhibited correspondence about discovery, notwithstanding that its transcript component was otherwise inspectable under r 2.32(2)(m).

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • ['Inspection of four affidavits permitted.']