Background
AB and CD, formerly husband and wife, had been involved in extensive Family Court proceedings. The present Supreme Court proceedings were factually and procedurally connected with those proceedings and concerned, principally, confidential information belonging to AB. Rampert News Pty Ltd and its journalist Ben Butler were also defendants.
On 27 October 2026, AB obtained ex parte orders requiring the use of pseudonyms and suppressing publication of material concerning the parties, summons and evidence. By the time the matter returned to the Duty List, Rampert had complied with an order requiring removal of an article from its website and related platforms. Rampert and Butler did not oppose continuation of the orders; CD did not appear.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Kunc continued the pseudonym orders because publishing the parties’ names could allow the public to identify people connected with the related Family Court proceedings, potentially resulting in a breach of s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975. That provision criminalizes public communication of an account of proceedings under the Act when the account identifies a party or another covered person, subject to specified court authorization.
The Court also continued the suppression and non-publication orders. Distinctive circumstances central to both matters could enable a diligent and skilled person to trace the Supreme Court case back to the anonymized Family Court proceedings. In addition, the case primarily concerned AB’s confidential information, and describing that information or its source more fully would undermine the confidence the orders protected. The Court directed that redacted orders be made available to media organizations that might wish to challenge them.
Key Takeaways
- A state-court proceeding may require pseudonym and non-publication orders when identification would compromise anonymity mandated in connected Family Court proceedings.
- Even without naming the parties, publishing distinctive facts can create an identification risk by allowing readers to link related judgments.
- The Court may withhold details from its reasons when disclosing them would defeat the confidentiality that its orders are intended to preserve.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts address the risk of “jigsaw identification” across related proceedings. Media reporting that omits names may still threaten protected anonymity if distinctive facts make the parties traceable.
It also shows that unopposed suppression orders remain open to scrutiny: the Court published reasons and arranged access to redacted orders so that media organizations could consider whether to challenge them.