WALTON v MOMOT [1997] NSWCA 334

WALTON v MOMOT [1997] NSWCA 334

There is a prima facie presumption that the Tribunal sits in public, and special or exceptional circumstances must be shown before suppression orders are granted. The Tribunal did not err in law by refusing a suppression order absent such circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Merrilyn Walton; Respondent: Alexander Momot
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Open Justice, Disciplinary Tribunals
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Suppression Orders Open Justice Disciplinary Tribunals

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merrilyn Walton

Appellant

Alexander Momot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special or exceptional circumstances are required for a suppression order under the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing a suppression order for the identity of the practitioner

Ratio Decidendi

There is a prima facie presumption that the Tribunal sits in public, and special or exceptional circumstances must be shown before suppression orders are granted. The Tribunal did not err in law by refusing a suppression order absent such circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Supreme Court set aside
  • Proceedings in the Supreme Court dismissed with costs