Ogawa v President, Australian Human Rights Commission (No 3) [2022] FCA 1260
It would be contrary to, and not within the power of, a single judge to make interim suppression orders that are inconsistent with the recent Full Court's considered conclusion that no such orders are justified; no relevant change in circumstances was demonstrated by Dr Ogawa to justify reconsideration.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Interim Suppression Order Application – Refused
- Outcome
- Application for interim suppression order refused
- Legal Topics
- ['suppression Orders' 'interlocutory Applications' 'open Justice']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interim Suppression Order Application – Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an interim suppression order should be granted in proceeding VID792/2020 under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)']
Ratio Decidendi
It would be contrary to, and not within the power of, a single judge to make interim suppression orders that are inconsistent with the recent Full Court's considered conclusion that no such orders are justified; no relevant change in circumstances was demonstrated by Dr Ogawa to justify reconsideration.
Court Disposition
Application for interim suppression order refused
Orders
- ['The application for an interim suppression order contained in the interlocutory application dated 26 September 2022 is refused.' 'No order as to costs.' 'The hearing of the interlocutory application for suppression orders in VID792/2020 be allocated to a Judge for determination as soon as reasonably practicable.'...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment