XY (a pseudonym) v IBAC

[2026] VSCA 139

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Open Courts
2. › Pseudonym orders
3. › Inherent jurisdiction of the court
1. Open Courts
2. › Pseudonym orders
3. › Necessity to avoid prejudice to administration of justice
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › IBAC reports — restraint of transmission to Parliament
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory appeals
3. › Leave to appeal — stringent requirement — substantial injustice

Quick Take

The Court of Appeal held that pseudonym orders under the court's inherent jurisdiction require a demonstrated real likelihood of prejudice to the administration of justice, not merely harm to a party's reputation or interests. Speculative reputational harm arising from being identified as a party challenging an IBAC report — even where s 166 of the IBAC Act prevents the party from publicly addressing the report's contents — does not engage the inherent power. The Court emphasised that where a proceeding will not be stultified by refusal of the order and the party retains the full legal benefit of any relief obtained, the open court principle prevails, and appellate review of such discretionary decisions requires House v The King error.