Sheila Mary Rimmer v Ormond College Council [1995] IRCA 435

Suppression orders were refused because they do not serve the administration of justice and offend against open justice; exceptional circumstances justifying suppression were not established.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 01 September 1995
Procedural Posture: Application for Suppression / Motion Hearing and Judgment
Outcome: Respondent's motion for suppression orders dismissed.
Legal Topics: ['suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality of Court Documents']

['industrial Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'confidentiality of Court Documents']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Suppression / Motion Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether suppression of names and documents is justified' 'Balancing prejudice to parties against public interest in open justice']

Ratio Decidendi

Suppression orders were refused because they do not serve the administration of justice and offend against open justice; exceptional circumstances justifying suppression were not established.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion for suppression orders dismissed.

Orders

["The respondent's motion, notice of which was given on 31 August 1995, is dismissed."]