Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 129

Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 129

The Tribunal refused the non-disclosure order because Ms Frost did not establish good reasons to depart from open justice. Although the Tribunal accepted that concern about stigma for mental health issues was not far-fetched and was troubled by the possible effect on Ms Frost, her claimed prejudice was speculative...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order Prohibiting Disclosure of the Applicant's Name in Proceedings Arising From a Disability Discrimination Complaint in Education / Procedural Ruling on the Papers Under S 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)
Outcome
The application for an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of Julie Frost's name, is refused.
Legal Topics
['non Disclosure Orders' 'confidentiality Orders' 'open Justice' 'publication of Reasons' 'disability Discrimination Complaint']
['administrative Law' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['non Disclosure Orders' 'confidentiality Orders' 'open Justice' 'publication of Reasons' 'disability Discrimination Complaint']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for an Order Prohibiting Disclosure of the Applicant's Name in Proceedings Arising From a Disability Discrimination Complaint in Education / Procedural Ruling on the Papers Under S 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was desirable under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to prohibit disclosure of Julie Frost's name in the proceedings." "Whether Ms Frost's concerns about stigma, distress, reputation and mental health justified departing from the principle of open justice." "Whether Ms Frost's own disclosure of information about the proceedings to non-parties weighed against making a non-disclosure order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the non-disclosure order because Ms Frost did not establish good reasons to depart from open justice. Although the Tribunal accepted that concern about stigma for mental health issues was not far-fetched and was troubled by the possible effect on Ms Frost, her claimed prejudice was speculative and she had widely disclosed her account of the complaint and serious allegations about TAFE staff and officers to non-parties. Fairness to TAFE and affected individuals required that the complaint be determined in an open way, and the threshold for exercising s 64 was not met.

Court Disposition

The application for an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of Julie Frost's name, is refused.

Orders

  • ["The application for an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) prohibiting the disclosure of Julie Frost's name, is refused." 'The Registrar is requested not to publish on Caselaw these reasons and the reason for the strike out decision until 28 days after the date of this...