GAC v Trustees of the Marist Brothers & Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta [2024] NSWSC 980

GAC v Trustees of the Marist Brothers & Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta [2024] NSWSC 980

Because the Plaintiff and his legal advisers should have access to all subpoenaed documents without redactions, including the counselling records, and any harm from disclosure would not outweigh the desirability of access given the restrictive terms imposed, the Court declined to make a s 126B direction and granted access on terms limiting use and disclosure. The Court also made suppression and non-publication orders because there was no material distinction from the related WJT proceedings and the orders were appropriate to protect the Plaintiff's identity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings; Procedural Rulings Concerning Subpoenaed Documents and Suppression/non Publication Orders / Notices of Motion Concerning Access to Subpoenaed Documents, Redactions, S 126 B Evidence Act Direction, and Suppression/non Publication Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff granted access to subpoenaed documents on terms; s 126B direction declined; leave nunc pro tunc not granted; limited suppression and non-publication orders made protecting the Plaintiff's identity.
Legal Topics
['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'access to Subpoenaed Documents' 'redactions to Protect Identity and Personal Information' 'counselling Records' 'evidence Act S 126 B Direction' 'open Justice' 'suppression Order Protecting Plaintiff Identity']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'access to Subpoenaed Documents' 'redactions to Protect Identity and Personal Information' 'counselling Records' 'evidence Act S 126 B Direction' 'open Justice' 'suppression Order Protecting Plaintiff Identity']

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

Civil Proceedings; Procedural Rulings Concerning Subpoenaed Documents and Suppression/non Publication Orders / Notices of Motion Concerning Access to Subpoenaed Documents, Redactions, S 126 B Evidence Act Direction, and Suppression/non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Defendants required leave nunc pro tunc to maintain redactions to documents when the subpoenas were originally answered.' 'Whether a direction ought to be made under s 126B of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to prevent access to redacted information in counselling records.' 'Whether access to the counselling records should be granted subject to the terms imposed in Storer v New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1043.' 'Whether suppression and non-publication orders should be made to protect the name and identity of the Plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Plaintiff and his legal advisers should have access to all subpoenaed documents without redactions, including the counselling records, and any harm from disclosure would not outweigh the desirability of access given the restrictive terms imposed, the Court declined to make a s 126B direction and granted access on terms limiting use and disclosure. The Court also made suppression and non-publication orders because there was no material distinction from the related WJT proceedings and the orders were appropriate to protect the Plaintiff's identity.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted access to subpoenaed documents on terms; s 126B direction declined; leave nunc pro tunc not granted; limited suppression and non-publication orders made protecting the Plaintiff's identity.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2024 be dismissed." 'Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 33.8, general access be given to subpoena packets S-12 produced by the First Defendant and S-13 produced by the Second Defendant.' 'Pursuant to UCPR 33.4(1) and 33.8 and the inherent...