Seraphim v Houda [2024] NSWCATAD 341

Seraphim v Houda [2024] NSWCATAD 341

The Tribunal decided that none of the Respondents' confidentiality orders for the substantive hearing should be granted because the legislative requirement of desirability was not satisfied, given the strong presumption of open justice in NCAT proceedings involving judicial power under anti-discrimination law. The suggested justifications did not outweigh the public interest in full and open reporting of the proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Hana Seraphim; First Respondent: Adam Houda; Second Respondent: Lawyers Corp Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Miscellaneous Procedural Orders / Interlocutory; Decision on Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders
Outcome
Respondents' application for suppression and non-publication orders refused in respect of substantive proceedings. Ancillary procedural orders made.
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Non Publication Orders, Open Justice, Confidentiality in Proceedings
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Law Suppression Orders Non Publication Orders Open Justice Confidentiality in Proceedings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hana Seraphim

Applicant

Adam Houda

First Respondent

Lawyers Corp Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Miscellaneous Procedural Orders / Interlocutory; Decision on Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is desirable to order the hearing be held in private and/or to prohibit publication of names and evidence under ss 49 and 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal decided that none of the Respondents' confidentiality orders for the substantive hearing should be granted because the legislative requirement of desirability was not satisfied, given the strong presumption of open justice in NCAT proceedings involving judicial power under anti-discrimination law. The suggested justifications did not outweigh the public interest in full and open reporting of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application for suppression and non-publication orders refused in respect of substantive proceedings. Ancillary procedural orders made.

Orders

  • Under s 49(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the hearing of the Respondents' application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is to be conducted wholly in private.
  • Under s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of any evidence given before the Tribunal or evidentiary material contained in documents before the Tribunal in the Respondents' application for miscellaneous matters dated 8 October 2024, is prohibited.