Lloyd -v- TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd and Another [1999] NSWADTAP 3

Lloyd -v- TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd and Another [1999] NSWADTAP 3

The Tribunal at first instance erred in law by treating s.126 as subservient to, or qualified by, the open justice provision in s.75, and by failing to require the applicant (TCN 9) to demonstrate persuasive grounds for consent to publication. The proper approach is that s.126 establishes a prohibition, the lifting of which must be independently justified by reference to its own statutory values. On the merits, there was insufficient reason to lift the prohibition—no public interest in publication was shown, and evidence established the risk of reputational and financial harm to the appellant. Accordingly, consent to publish the appellant’s name should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Permitting Publication of Appellant's Name Under S 126 ADT Act
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision at first instance set aside; application for consent to publish appellant’s name refused
Legal Topics
['non Publication Orders' 'suppression Orders' 'privacy' 'open Justice' 'tribunal Powers' 'media Reporting' 'statutory Interpretation']
['administrative Law' 'professional Discipline' 'media Law'] ['non Publication Orders' 'suppression Orders' 'privacy' 'open Justice' 'tribunal Powers' 'media Reporting' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Appeal / Appeal From Order Permitting Publication of Appellant's Name Under S 126 ADT Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Tribunal erred in granting consent under s.126 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 to publish name of appellant' 'Relationship between open justice (s.75) and publication prohibition (s.126)' 'Standing of media to seek consent under s.126']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal at first instance erred in law by treating s.126 as subservient to, or qualified by, the open justice provision in s.75, and by failing to require the applicant (TCN 9) to demonstrate persuasive grounds for consent to publication. The proper approach is that s.126 establishes a prohibition, the lifting of which must be independently justified by reference to its own statutory values. On the merits, there was insufficient reason to lift the prohibition—no public interest in publication was shown, and evidence established the risk of reputational and financial harm to the appellant. Accordingly, consent to publish the appellant’s name should be refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision at first instance set aside; application for consent to publish appellant’s name refused

Orders

  • ['Appeal on error of law allowed.' 'Grant leave for the appeal to extend to a review of the merits of the appealable decision.' 'Appeal on the merits allowed.' 'Set aside the decision of the General Division made 18 March 1999.' 'Refuse the application under s.126 by TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited for consent to publish...