Ogawa v President, Australian Human Rights Commission (No 3) [2022] FCA 1260

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.

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 / Interim Suppression Order Application – Refused

  1. 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.'...