Quach v RU [2019] FCA 2041

Quach v RU [2019] FCA 2041

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant identified no cognisable or arguable legal error in the primary judge's pseudonym order, which the primary judge had power to make under ss 37AF(1)(a) and 37AG(1)(a) and could make on application or on the Court's own initiative under s 37AH(1). Any involvement by the Health Care Complaints Commission was immaterial to that power, the applicant did not show substantial injustice, and there was no evidence displacing the presumption that the Crown Solicitor was retained to act for RU.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders Made on 24 September 2019, Heard on 15 November 2019
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'suppression Order or Non Publication Order' 'pseudonym Order' 'authority of Solicitor to Act' 'federal Court Jurisdiction and Power']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'suppression Order or Non Publication Order' 'pseudonym Order' 'authority of Solicitor to Act' 'federal Court Jurisdiction and Power']

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 for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders Made on 24 September 2019, Heard on 15 November 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from orders requiring the respondent's name not to be published and requiring filed documents to be amended to comply with that order." 'Whether the primary judge had jurisdiction or power under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to make the pseudonym order.' 'Whether s 75 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) precluded the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission or the Crown Solicitor from being involved in the proceeding or seeking the pseudonym order.' "Whether the pseudonym order would cause substantial injustice by impeding the applicant's intended challenges concerning a subpoena and the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)." 'Whether there was evidence to displace the presumption that the Crown Solicitor had a retainer entitling the Crown Solicitor to act for RU.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant identified no cognisable or arguable legal error in the primary judge's pseudonym order, which the primary judge had power to make under ss 37AF(1)(a) and 37AG(1)(a) and could make on application or on the Court's own initiative under s 37AH(1). Any involvement by the Health Care Complaints Commission was immaterial to that power, the applicant did not show substantial injustice, and there was no evidence displacing the presumption that the Crown Solicitor was retained to act for RU.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]