LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 4) [2015] FCA 70

LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 4) [2015] FCA 70

Orders suppressing the transcript of the ACC examination, parties' identities, transcripts of hearings, and other documents, and use of pseudonyms, are necessary and appropriate to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and avoid chilling effect on witnesses, balancing open justice with need for confidentiality; suppression to endure until 2034.

Parties
First Applicant: LHRC; Second Applicant: LHRD; Third Applicant: LHRE; Fourth Applicant: LHRF; Fifth Applicant: LHRG; Sixth Applicant: LHRH; First Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Second Respondent: Australian Crime Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Suppression Orders After Dismissal of Substantive Application
Outcome
Suppression orders granted as per applicants' first proposal; pseudonym order made; confidentiality to endure until 2034; some publication and redactions allowed; liberty to apply; costs reserved except as tentatively awarded to first respondent for submissions on amended suppression application
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Open Justice, Non Publication Directions, Pseudonym Orders
Practice and Procedure Suppression Orders Open Justice Non Publication Directions Pseudonym Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LHRC

First Applicant

LHRD

Second Applicant

LHRE

Third Applicant

LHRF

Fourth Applicant

LHRG

Fifth Applicant

LHRH

Sixth Applicant

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

First Respondent

Australian Crime Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Suppression Orders After Dismissal of Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suppression orders are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice
  2. 2 Whether entirety of proceedings and judgment should be suppressed
  3. 3 Whether pseudonym order is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Orders suppressing the transcript of the ACC examination, parties' identities, transcripts of hearings, and other documents, and use of pseudonyms, are necessary and appropriate to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice and avoid chilling effect on witnesses, balancing open justice with need for confidentiality; suppression to endure until 2034.

Court Disposition

Suppression orders granted as per applicants' first proposal; pseudonym order made; confidentiality to endure until 2034; some publication and redactions allowed; liberty to apply; costs reserved except as tentatively awarded to first respondent for submissions on amended suppression application

Orders

  • Suppression of contents of documents filed or tendered and transcripts of any hearing except for parties, their legal representatives, Attorney General's Department, Court and Court staff
  • Suppression does not apply to references in final judgment or reasons for orders