X v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] FCA 1131

X v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] FCA 1131

Given both parties agreed and there being no overriding public interest to the contrary, suppression orders should be made under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act in respect of the names of the applicant and second respondent and related identifying information.

Parties
Applicant: X; First Respondent: Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission; Second Respondent: Another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Motion / Interlocutory
Outcome
Suppression order granted
Legal Topics
Suppression Orders, Open Justice, Privacy in Court Proceedings
Civil Procedure Suppression Orders Open Justice Privacy in Court Proceedings

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission

First Respondent

Another

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the names of the applicant and second respondent should be suppressed in these proceedings
  2. 2 Whether other confidential commercial information should be protected from publication

Ratio Decidendi

Given both parties agreed and there being no overriding public interest to the contrary, suppression orders should be made under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act in respect of the names of the applicant and second respondent and related identifying information.

Court Disposition

Suppression order granted

Orders

  • The names of the applicant and the second respondent be suppressed and parties referred to as 'X' and 'Another'.
  • Prohibition of publication of information and details that would enable identification of either party.