Background
The parties settled the proceeding more than three years earlier. Because the settlement required court approval, its terms were placed in evidence. In November 2023, the Court approved the settlement and ordered that the evidence containing its terms remain confidential and unavailable for public inspection or disclosure until 3 November 2026.
Shortly before that order expired, the Minister applied to extend it. The applicant was one of approximately 60 people who had commenced proceedings concerning their treatment at an overseas immigration processing facility, and a number of similar claims remained pending or were expected to proceed to mediation. The Minister argued that public access to the settlement terms could prejudice negotiations in those matters. DJA18 opposed the extension, noting the limited time available to consider the application and disputing the need for continued confidentiality.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Snaden granted the extension under ss 37AF and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court held that continued confidentiality was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. Ordinarily confidential settlement terms should not become public merely because the unusual circumstances of this case required the terms to be placed before the Court for approval.
The Court acknowledged the public interest in open justice but found a real prospect of prejudice if the deed became available for inspection, particularly while similar proceedings remained on foot. It ordered that the deed remain confidential, marked confidential on the Court’s electronic file, and unavailable for public inspection or disclosure in open court or the public portion of any transcript until 2 November 2029 or further order. No costs order was made.
Key Takeaways
- The Court may restrict access to settlement evidence when disclosure through court records would undermine confidentiality and prejudice the proper administration of justice.
- The continued existence of similar claims and anticipated mediations supported a further three-year confidentiality period.
- The open-justice principle remained relevant, but it did not outweigh the demonstrated need for continued protection of the settlement deed in these circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that filing settlement terms for judicial approval does not necessarily expose them to public inspection. Where disclosure would circumvent ordinary settlement confidentiality and materially affect related negotiations, the Federal Court may extend a non-publication or suppression order.
The ruling is fact-specific: it preserves confidentiality only until 2 November 2029 or further order, reflecting the expected duration of the related proceedings rather than imposing indefinite secrecy.