X v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] FCA 1131

JUDGMENT No. SL ed versennnnees

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 324 of 1995

GENERAL DIVISION ) Between: ox" Applicant : And: HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION &

- ANOR , First Respondent OGFEB 1996 FEDERAL cOURT OF

AUSTRALIA

And: ANOTHER

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EINFELD SYDNEY 15 MAY 1995

Each party has filed a motion for the suppression, for the purposes of the current proceedings before this Court, of the names of both the applicant and the second respondent. The affidavit filed in support of the motion brought by the second respondent is somewhat more expansive than merely the identity of the second respondent. It seems to be anxious to protect the contents of documents that have been supplied to the applicant

and the confidentiality of what is described as "those managers

and partners referred to in the documentation".

There is a reference to the fact that information which has been supplied by the second respondent to the applicant is "of a

sensitive commercial character being various staffing evaluations

which also reveal the second respondent's marketing strategies".

-2- In other words, it is suggested that not merely should the names of the parties be suppressed but that other information which may come before the hearing should also not be revealed to the public. This would of course be necessary in case the names do become public by some other method, or in case the Human Rights Commission decides at some stage that the names of the parties or in documents before it should be made public. I say this because the present situation is that the Human Rights Commission has made an order for the suppression of both parties' names and, as has been noted in submissions, the present proceeding before the Federal Court is of an interlocutory or procedural nature rather than a substantive hearing of the issues between the