Appleroth v Ferrari Australasia Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 820

Appleroth v Ferrari Australasia Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 820

The evidence, including the clinical psychologist's report, established that public identification of the interested persons as connected with the substantive proceeding would worsen the mother's poor mental health and harm the son's wellbeing, so non-publication orders were necessary to protect their safety under s 37AG(1)(c). However, open justice required the orders to be no broader or longer than necessary; a 12-month duration was appropriate, with liberty to seek continuation if justified. The mother's affidavit should remain confidential for the same period, but Mr Speirs's affidavit should not because it explained the basis for the non-publication order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Non Publication and Confidentiality Orders / Interlocutory Application by Interested Persons
Outcome
Application allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'confidentiality of Court Documents' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety' 'federal Court Procedure']
['practice and Procedure'] ['non Publication Orders' 'confidentiality of Court Documents' 'open Justice' 'protection of Safety' 'federal Court Procedure']

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

Interlocutory Application for Non Publication and Confidentiality Orders / Interlocutory Application by Interested Persons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make a non-publication order prohibiting publication of information identifying or tending to identify the interested persons as connected with the substantive proceeding.' 'Whether the Court should declare affidavits filed in support of the interlocutory application confidential and restrict public access to them.' 'What duration was appropriate for any non-publication and confidentiality orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including the clinical psychologist's report, established that public identification of the interested persons as connected with the substantive proceeding would worsen the mother's poor mental health and harm the son's wellbeing, so non-publication orders were necessary to protect their safety under s 37AG(1)(c). However, open justice required the orders to be no broader or longer than necessary; a 12-month duration was appropriate, with liberty to seek continuation if justified. The mother's affidavit should remain confidential for the same period, but Mr Speirs's affidavit should not because it explained the basis for the non-publication order.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 37AF(1) and 37AI(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and until further order or 4pm on Friday, 11 June 2021, whichever occurs first, publication of information that identifies or tends to identify either applicant to the interlocutory application filed on 4 June 2020, including by...