In the matter of the application of TSK (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWSC 494

In the matter of the application of TSK (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWSC 494

The open justice principle was not displaced. The plaintiff's concerns about renewed adverse media attention and further reputational or professional harm did not demonstrate that suppression was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The evidence also did not establish a possibility of harm to the plaintiff's children of sufficient gravity and likelihood to make the orders necessary for their safety. Relief under s 7 was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders, Including Leave to Commence and Continue a Malicious Prosecution Claim Under a Pseudonym / Duty Judge Hearing on Summons
Outcome
Relief under s 7 refused; limited temporary restriction on unrestricted publication granted; proceedings otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'proceedings Under a Pseudonym' 'protection of Safety of Children' 'malicious Prosecution Claim']
['civil Procedure'] ['suppression and Non Publication Orders' 'open Justice' 'proceedings Under a Pseudonym' 'protection of Safety of Children' 'malicious Prosecution Claim']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Suppression and Non Publication Orders, Including Leave to Commence and Continue a Malicious Prosecution Claim Under a Pseudonym / Duty Judge Hearing on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) permitting the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym and prohibiting publication of identifying information were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.' "Whether the proposed orders were necessary to protect the safety, including psychological safety, of the plaintiff's children."]

Ratio Decidendi

The open justice principle was not displaced. The plaintiff's concerns about renewed adverse media attention and further reputational or professional harm did not demonstrate that suppression was necessary to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice. The evidence also did not establish a possibility of harm to the plaintiff's children of sufficient gravity and likelihood to make the orders necessary for their safety. Relief under s 7 was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Relief under s 7 refused; limited temporary restriction on unrestricted publication granted; proceedings otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Relief under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) is refused;' 'Under s 10 of the said Act, direct that these reasons and orders are not to be published in an unrestricted form on NSW Caselaw for a period of 28 days from today to enable the plaintiff, if so advised, to appeal;'...