Smith v Jones (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1321

Smith v Jones (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1321

The plaintiff did not establish that suppressing her identity was necessary either to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to protect her safety. The 2019 settlement conference incident arose independently of the judgment and did not demonstrate prejudice to the administration of justice. The remaining concerns were speculative, and the psychiatric and counselling reports supported only a qualified possibility of aggravation depending on other events. The statutory grounds under s 8(1) were therefore not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure – Suppression and Non Publication Application / Notice of Motion Filed 5 September 2022 Seeking Suppression of the Plaintiff's Identity After Judgment Delivered on 9 September 2022
Outcome
The plaintiff's application for suppression of her identity was refused and her notice of motion filed 5 September 2022 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'administration of Justice' 'safety of Persons' 'psychological Safety']
['civil Procedure'] ['suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'administration of Justice' 'safety of Persons' 'psychological Safety']

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 Procedure – Suppression and Non Publication Application / Notice of Motion Filed 5 September 2022 Seeking Suppression of the Plaintiff's Identity After Judgment Delivered on 9 September 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was necessary under s 8(1)(a) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to suppress the plaintiff's identity to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice." "Whether it was necessary under s 8(1)(c) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to suppress the plaintiff's identity to protect the plaintiff's safety."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish that suppressing her identity was necessary either to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to protect her safety. The 2019 settlement conference incident arose independently of the judgment and did not demonstrate prejudice to the administration of justice. The remaining concerns were speculative, and the psychiatric and counselling reports supported only a qualified possibility of aggravation depending on other events. The statutory grounds under s 8(1) were therefore not made out.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application for suppression of her identity was refused and her notice of motion filed 5 September 2022 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The suppression order sought in the notice of motion is refused.' 'The notice of motion is dismissed with costs.']