A contractual agreement between parties to keep disputes confidential is not sufficient to establish that a suppression order is 'necessary' to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s 8(1)(a) of the CSPO Act. The principle of legality requires the CSPO Act to be construed to minimise intrusion upon open justice. Parties seeking suppression orders based on contractual confidentiality provisions must demonstrate something more than the existence of the agreement itself. The scope of s 7 of the CSPO Act may be limited to information about the identity of parties/witnesses and evidence (per Young JA, not decided by Bathurst CJ and McColl JA).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 211 later cases that cite this judgment.
55 of the 211 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.