Clean Energy Regulator v Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1310

Clean Energy Regulator v Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1310

The suppression and pseudonym orders sought are not necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice or protect the safety of the authorised representative; evidence does not establish an unacceptable risk to safety nor satisfy the required nexus for suppression under s 37AG(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); open justice principles outweigh claimed privacy and psychological harm in the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Clean Energy Regulator; First Respondent: Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Shamsuddin Shaikh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Substantive Proceeding / Application for Suppression and Pseudonym Order—determined
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to Regulator.
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Pseudonym Orders, Federal Court Procedure, Open Justice, Mental Health in Litigation
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Corporations Law Suppression Orders Pseudonym Orders Federal Court Procedure Open Justice Mental Health in Litigation

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clean Energy Regulator

Applicant

Emerging Energy Solutions Group Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Shamsuddin Shaikh

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Substantive Proceeding / Application for Suppression and Pseudonym Order—determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suppression or pseudonym order is necessary under s 37AF and s 37AG(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of identity might prejudice the administration of justice or safety of a person
  3. 3 Application of open justice principle to parties and witnesses' identities

Ratio Decidendi

The suppression and pseudonym orders sought are not necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice or protect the safety of the authorised representative; evidence does not establish an unacceptable risk to safety nor satisfy the required nexus for suppression under s 37AG(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); open justice principles outweigh claimed privacy and psychological harm in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to Regulator.

Orders

  • The second respondent's interlocutory application dated 3 October 2024 be dismissed with costs.