Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Confidentiality) (No 2) [2023] FCA 1561

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Confidentiality) (No 2) [2023] FCA 1561

It was necessary to suppress limited parts of the deed containing bank account details and highly personal medical information which was irrelevant or at best marginally relevant to the issues in the proceeding and had been provided in settling another dispute between different parties, in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Suppression of the signature page was not necessary because other documents bearing relevant signatures had already been made public on the online Court file.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Application by Non Party for Confidentiality Orders in Respect of Deed of Settlement and Release Tendered in Proceeding / Ex Tempore Reasons on Confidentiality Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; three of four requested categories of redaction were ordered, and redaction of the signature page was refused.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'medical Information in Settlement Deed' 'relevance of Tendered Evidence' 'open Justice']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'open Justice and Confidentiality'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'proper Administration of Justice' 'medical Information in Settlement Deed' 'relevance of Tendered Evidence' 'open Justice']

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 by Non Party for Confidentiality Orders in Respect of Deed of Settlement and Release Tendered in Proceeding / Ex Tempore Reasons on Confidentiality Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether parts of the deed of settlement and release between the Commonwealth of Australia and Ms Brittany Higgins should be suppressed under ss 37AF(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether suppression of the signature page was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.' 'Whether bank account details and personal medical information in the deed and attachments should be redacted.' 'How the statutory test for suppression orders interacts with the public interest in open justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was necessary to suppress limited parts of the deed containing bank account details and highly personal medical information which was irrelevant or at best marginally relevant to the issues in the proceeding and had been provided in settling another dispute between different parties, in order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Suppression of the signature page was not necessary because other documents bearing relevant signatures had already been made public on the online Court file.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; three of four requested categories of redaction were ordered, and redaction of the signature page was refused.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to ss 37AF(1)(b) and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), specified parts of the deed of settlement and release executed by the Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Finance) and Brittany Higgins, dated 13 December 2022, be suppressed for a period of ten...