Kaldas v Barbour [2016] NSWSC 1737

Kaldas v Barbour [2016] NSWSC 1737

The Court made the orders sought at this stage because the summons and motion were supported by Mr Ishak's affidavit, the necessary undertakings had been given, and the non-publication order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, with that public interest significantly outweighing the public interest in open justice given the material was already subject to non-publication orders pursuant to the Ombudsman Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion and Summons Seeking Declaratory, Injunctive and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application for Short Service and Non Publication Order
Outcome
Orders sought made.
Legal Topics
['short Service' 'non Publication Orders' 'court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (nsw)' 'ombudsman Report']
['procedure'] ['short Service' 'non Publication Orders' 'court Suppression and Non Publication Orders Act 2010 (nsw)' 'ombudsman Report']

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

Notice of Motion and Summons Seeking Declaratory, Injunctive and Interlocutory Relief / Interlocutory Application for Short Service and Non Publication Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders for short service should be made.' 'Whether an order under section 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) should be made in relation to certain documents exhibited to an affidavit.' 'Whether the matter should be listed for hearing of further interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the orders sought at this stage because the summons and motion were supported by Mr Ishak's affidavit, the necessary undertakings had been given, and the non-publication order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, with that public interest significantly outweighing the public interest in open justice given the material was already subject to non-publication orders pursuant to the Ombudsman Act.

Court Disposition

Orders sought made.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted for short service of the documents referred to in MFI 1.' 'The matter was listed for hearing at 2.00pm on 8 December 2016.' 'The words "before the duty judge" were struck from paragraph 5 of MFI 1.' 'Orders otherwise made in the terms sought, including an order under the Court Suppression and...