Background
A plaintiff in proceedings before the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied for suppression and non-publication orders over the proceedings or related information. The application was heard in the Common Law Division before Elkaim AJ on 11 June 2026. The central question was whether orders restricting publication were legally necessary to protect the plaintiff’s physical safety.
The court’s catchwords record the applicable test as a “calculus of risk” approach — a framework that weighs the nature and probability of the asserted safety risk against the public interest in open justice and the free flow of information before determining whether a suppression or non-publication order is warranted. The identity of the parties and the underlying facts of the principal proceedings are not publicly available, as the full text of the judgment has itself been restricted by order of the court.
The Court’s Holding
The text of the judgment is restricted and has not been published on NSW Caselaw. The operative outcome — whether suppression or non-publication orders were granted, refused, or granted in part — is therefore not available from the published record. What is recorded is that the court engaged with the question of whether the statutory threshold of necessity to protect the plaintiff’s safety was met, applying a calculus of risk methodology to that assessment.
The fact that the decision itself has been restricted strongly indicates that the court made at least some orders limiting publication, consistent with the subject matter of the application. No further detail as to the scope or duration of any orders can be stated with confidence on the basis of the available record.
Key Takeaways
- NSW courts apply a “calculus of risk” approach when assessing whether suppression or non-publication orders are necessary to protect a party’s safety, balancing the magnitude and probability of harm against open-justice principles.
- The threshold for suppression is necessity, not mere desirability — a party seeking an order must satisfy the court that publication would create a real and identifiable risk to their safety.
- A decision on a suppression application may itself be restricted, creating a self-contained layer of confidentiality where disclosure of the reasons could undermine the protection sought.
Why It Matters
This decision is a reminder that Australian courts treating suppression and non-publication applications must navigate a careful balance between the open-justice principle — fundamental to public confidence in the courts — and the duty to protect individuals from serious harm. The calculus of risk framework gives courts a structured way to make that assessment without treating safety concerns as automatically determinative.
Because both the parties and the judgment text are restricted, the case will have limited direct precedential visibility. Nevertheless, its citation may be significant in future suppression-order litigation in NSW as an example of Elkaim AJ’s application of the necessity and risk-calculus tests, once and if the restriction is lifted.