Crosse v Negus [2012] FCA 182

Crosse v Negus [2012] FCA 182

The Court was satisfied from the confidential affidavit evidence that disclosure of the specified limited references in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the statement of claim might prejudice public safety and Australian security interests, and that the proposed orders were suitably confined because they would not restrict publication of general information about the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Orders Preventing Public Disclosure of Parts of a Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Filed and Heard on 27 January 2012
Outcome
The respondents' interlocutory application was granted and limited confidentiality and non-publication orders were made until further order.
Legal Topics
['non Publication and Confidentiality Orders' 'redaction of Court Documents' 'adverse Action Allegations' 'public Safety' 'australian Security Interests']
['federal Court Procedure' 'employment Law' 'open Justice' 'public Safety and Security'] ['non Publication and Confidentiality Orders' 'redaction of Court Documents' 'adverse Action Allegations' 'public Safety' 'australian Security Interests']

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

Interlocutory Application for Orders Preventing Public Disclosure of Parts of a Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application Filed and Heard on 27 January 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should prevent public disclosure of specified words in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the statement of claim.' 'Whether disclosure of those parts of the statement of claim might prejudice public safety and Australian security interests.' 'Whether the proposed limitation on publication was suitably confined given the principle of open justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied from the confidential affidavit evidence that disclosure of the specified limited references in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the statement of claim might prejudice public safety and Australian security interests, and that the proposed orders were suitably confined because they would not restrict publication of general information about the proceeding.

Court Disposition

The respondents' interlocutory application was granted and limited confidentiality and non-publication orders were made until further order.

Orders

  • ['Until further order, no person shall publicly disclose the contents of the specified redacted words and particulars in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Statement of Claim dated 12 December 2011.' 'Until further order, only the Redacted Statement of Claim is to be publicly searchable on the Court file and a copy of the...