EFG bht HIJ v KLM [2022] NSWSC 826

EFG bht HIJ v KLM [2022] NSWSC 826

Given the ongoing criminal proceedings, significant publicity, and psychological harm risk to the plaintiff, the necessity test in ss 6 and 8 of the Act is met and suppression, non-publication, and pseudonym orders should be made.

Parties
Plaintiff: EFG bht HIJ; Defendant: KLM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Suppression and Pseudonym Orders
Outcome
Suppression, non-publication, and pseudonym orders made as sought.
Legal Topics
Suppression Order, Non Publication Order, Use of Pseudonyms, Trespass to the Person, Open Justice
Civil Procedure Suppression Order Non Publication Order Use of Pseudonyms Trespass to the Person 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EFG bht HIJ

Plaintiff

KLM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion for Suppression and Pseudonym Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suppression and non-publication orders should be made under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the use of pseudonyms is necessary to protect the plaintiff and preserve the administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

Given the ongoing criminal proceedings, significant publicity, and psychological harm risk to the plaintiff, the necessity test in ss 6 and 8 of the Act is met and suppression, non-publication, and pseudonym orders should be made.

Court Disposition

Suppression, non-publication, and pseudonym orders made as sought.

Orders

  • The name and identity of the plaintiff suppressed except as may be necessary for the conduct of proceedings.
  • Order 1 applies throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.