The Court held that a proceeding suppression order under s 18(1)(a) of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, on the basis that the absence of such an order could create a 'chilling effect' deterring the Family Court and other notifiers from referring matters to health practitioner regulatory bodies for fear that children's interests would be prejudiced by publication of family law proceeding details. The Court made permanent pseudonym orders, a closed file order, and a targeted proceeding suppression order prohibiting publication of information that might identify the applicant, his former spouse, or their children, while publishing a modified form of its reasons with redactions — rejecting the applicant's arguments based on res judicata, alleged corruption, domestic violence victim status under s 15(1B), and the public domain nature of certain information. The Court confirmed that the categories of cases warranting proceeding suppression orders in the interests of justice are not closed, and that the rationale of protecting the integrity of cross-jurisdictional regulatory referral processes can justify such orders even where s 121 of the Family Law Act is not itself relied upon.
The full text is available to signed-in members.