The Court dismissed an application for suppression orders covering virtually all documents filed in the proceeding, holding that the applicant failed to establish either that suppression was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to protect personal safety. The Court emphasised that blanket suppression applications must be supported by specific evidence identifying the commercially sensitive material or safety risk, not general assertions, and that seeking to suppress material already publicly available (here, social media posts) fundamentally undermines the necessity requirement. The Court left open that a narrower, properly particularised application directed to discrete commercially sensitive material or family-identifying information might succeed.
The full text is available to signed-in members.