In a [decision related to the (No. 3) case above], the Federal Court granted the [same] taxpayers’ application for “confidential[ity] orders” in relation to the identity of the parties, the contents of any documents filed or tendered in the proceedings and the non-disclosure of the transcript of any hearing in the proceedings to anyone other than the parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, the Court and Court Staff. Further, the Court ordered that such orders were to remain in place for some 20 years until 1 January 2034.
However, the Court ordered that the confidentiality orders were not to apply to such documents etc as they related to the confidential[ity] application proceeding itself, and that they were not to operate so as to prevent a party or its legal representatives from disclosing documents that were already in that party’s possession before the commencement of these proceedings, where such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the confidential[ity] orders sought by the taxpayers “would mean that the entirety of the case would be kept confidential, including the reasons and orders”, the Court agreed with the Commissioner that “it is not in the interests of justice to make so extreme a suppression order” and stated that it did “not consider that suppression of the entirety of these proceedings, including the reasons for judgment and orders disposing of the matter, can be justified” in the circumstances.
(LHRC & Ors v DCT (No 4) [2015] FCA 70, Federal Court, Perry J, 12 February 2015)
[LTN 35, 23/2/15]