Background
Shelley Ritter sued Savills (Aust) Pty Ltd and Savills (WA) Pty Ltd, seeking declarations of unlawful discrimination, damages and costs based on alleged conduct by other employees while she worked for the Savills property advisory business. Her pleading particularised conduct allegedly occurring between 2007 and 2019.
In an earlier ruling, the Court permanently stayed most claims concerning conduct before 2013 because the passage of time meant that trying them would be unfair or unjustifiably oppressive, and ordered Ritter to file a substitute statement of claim. The Savills entities then sought suppression and non-publication orders covering references to the stayed claims and affidavit material containing allegations said not to relate to any claim in the proceeding. A media organisation had requested access to the originating application and statement of claim.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Colvin allowed the suppression application under ss 37AF(1) and 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court prohibited publication of specified references to the permanently stayed claims, except to the parties’ legal representatives, for 20 years. Because reports of court proceedings may attract absolute privilege, publication could expose the allegations to the public even though the Court had determined that Savills could not fairly defend them at trial, thereby undermining the stay and the proper administration of justice.
The Court also temporarily suppressed specified witness statements, affidavits and related material until trial. Large amounts of evidence ordinarily presented at trial had entered the file for the limited purpose of the stay application, without findings about its truth or final relevance. Premature publication could affect witnesses’ independent recollections, cause unfairness outside the protections of cross-examination and answering evidence, and create misleading impressions before the issues were refined. The Court required redacted versions of the affected documents, granted liberty to apply on 14 days’ notice and reserved the costs of the suppression applications.
Key Takeaways
- A suppression order must be necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; convenience, reasonableness or general desirability is insufficient.
- Long-term suppression was justified for allegations permanently stayed because they could no longer be fairly tried, yet could otherwise be republished under the protection associated with reports of court proceedings.
- Pretrial evidence was suppressed only until trial, when admissibility, relevance and credibility could be addressed through judicial supervision, cross-examination and responsive evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how open justice interacts with procedural fairness when serious allegations remain on a public court file after the underlying claims have been permanently stayed. Suppression may be necessary where unrestricted publication would defeat the protection afforded by the stay itself.
It also shows that evidence filed for a limited interlocutory purpose may warrant temporary confidentiality when publication before trial could distort the issues, influence prospective witnesses or expose untested allegations without ordinary trial safeguards.