McLachlan v Browne & Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; McLachlan v Browne & Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 830

McLachlan v Browne & Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; McLachlan v Browne & Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 830

On the material before the Court, it is not possible to assess the importance of the three persons to the defence or to be satisfied that suppression orders are necessary under ss 8(1)(a) or 8(1)(e). As such, the application for suppression and non-publication orders is refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Craig McLachlan; First Defendant: Christie Whelan Browne; Second Defendant (in 2018/34244): Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Second Defendant (in 2018/34257): Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for suppression and non-publication orders refused
Legal Topics
Suppression Order, Non Publication Order, Anonymity, Open Justice
Defamation Procedure Suppression Order Non Publication Order Anonymity 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig McLachlan

Plaintiff

Christie Whelan Browne

First Defendant

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

Second Defendant (in 2018/34244)

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Second Defendant (in 2018/34257)

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) permits suppression of particulars relating to individuals not yet parties or witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for making suppression or non-publication orders are established under s 8(1)(a) or s 8(1)(e) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

On the material before the Court, it is not possible to assess the importance of the three persons to the defence or to be satisfied that suppression orders are necessary under ss 8(1)(a) or 8(1)(e). As such, the application for suppression and non-publication orders is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for suppression and non-publication orders refused

Orders

  • Application for suppression and non-publication orders in relation to three individuals is refused.