Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1101

Oldham v Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1101

The Court refused non-party access to the AHRC Complaint because the document remained confidential under statute and court rules, had not been deployed as evidence in open court, the proceeding had settled and been discontinued, and principles of open justice did not require its release; the utility of access for unrelated foreign proceedings did not outweigh the strong presumption of confidentiality.

Parties
Applicant: Shelley Oldham; First Respondent: Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Paul Thorley; Non Party Applicant (third Party Application): Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers (for Mr Christopher Stevenson)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Third Party Application for Leave to Inspect Documents / Application for Access to Court Documents After Settlement and Discontinuance of Main Proceeding
Outcome
Application for access by non-party is refused.
Legal Topics
Third Party Access to Court Documents, Confidentiality of Australian Human Rights Commission Complaints, Principles of Open Justice, Effect of Settlement on Disclosure Rights
Practice and Procedure Administrative Law Human Rights Third Party Access to Court Documents Confidentiality of Australian Human Rights Commission Complaints Principles of Open Justice Effect of Settlement on Disclosure Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shelley Oldham

Applicant

Capgemini Australia Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Paul Thorley

Second Respondent

Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers (for Mr Christopher Stevenson)

Non Party Applicant (third Party Application)

Procedural Posture

Third Party Application for Leave to Inspect Documents / Application for Access to Court Documents After Settlement and Discontinuance of Main Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-party can obtain access to a confidential complaint made to the Australian Human Rights Commission filed in Federal Court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the principles of open justice support or weigh against release of such a complaint
  3. 3 Effect of settlement and discontinuance on third party inspection rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused non-party access to the AHRC Complaint because the document remained confidential under statute and court rules, had not been deployed as evidence in open court, the proceeding had settled and been discontinued, and principles of open justice did not require its release; the utility of access for unrelated foreign proceedings did not outweigh the strong presumption of confidentiality.

Court Disposition

Application for access by non-party is refused.

Orders

  • The application by non-party for access to the complaint made to the Australian Human Rights Commission by the applicant is refused.