BDN v McCoy [2019] NSWSC 1723

BDN v McCoy [2019] NSWSC 1723

The Court made the suppression and pseudonym orders because protecting the plaintiff's identity was necessary in the public interest: the proceedings would otherwise remain open, but identifying the plaintiff risked distress, embarrassment and possible psychological harm in a sensitive alleged sexual abuse claim, and there was a significant public interest in victims of alleged sexual assaults not being deterred from litigating by fear of such exposure. In the plaintiff's circumstances there was no sensible or appropriate end date, so the orders were made until further order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Suppression and Non Publication Order Application / Notice of Motion Filed 14 November 2019; Ex Tempore Ruling on 4 December 2019
Outcome
Orders made.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'pseudonym Orders' 'alleged Sexual Assault Victims']
['common Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'pseudonym Orders' 'alleged Sexual Assault Victims']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Suppression and Non Publication Order Application / Notice of Motion Filed 14 November 2019; Ex Tempore Ruling on 4 December 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's name and identity should be suppressed except as necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings." 'Whether a suppression or non-publication order was necessary in the public interest and whether that public interest significantly outweighed the public interest in open justice.' 'Whether the order should be made until further order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the suppression and pseudonym orders because protecting the plaintiff's identity was necessary in the public interest: the proceedings would otherwise remain open, but identifying the plaintiff risked distress, embarrassment and possible psychological harm in a sensitive alleged sexual abuse claim, and there was a significant public interest in victims of alleged sexual assaults not being deterred from litigating by fear of such exposure. In the plaintiff's circumstances there was no sensible or appropriate end date, so the orders were made until further order.

Court Disposition

Orders made.

Orders

  • ['Order, until further order, that the Plaintiff in these proceedings be known as "BDN"; be described in all pleadings and other documents filed or served in the proceedings as "BDN"; and except as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings, be only referred to as "BDN".' 'Order that the name of the...