FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA LFDB v SM [2016] FCA 262 File number(s): NSD 1665 of 2015 Judge(s): GRIFFITHS J Date of judgment: 14 March 2016 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Orders sought under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice - suppression and non-publication orders - judicial comity Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37AF Family Court Act 1980 (NZ), ss 11B, 11D Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) Cases cited: LFDB v SM [2015] FCA 725 LFDB v SM (No 2) [2015] FCA 1013 LFDB v SM [2011] FMCA 892 Date of hearing: 14 March 2016 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr P Herzfeld Solicitor for the Applicants: O'Neill Partners Commercial Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Dr C Ward SC Solicitor for the Respondent: Marque Lawyers ORDERS NSD 1665 of 2015 BETWEEN: LFDB (and others named in the Schedule) First Applicant AND: SM Respondent JUDGE: GRIFFITHS J DATE OF ORDER: 14 MArch 2016 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the ground that the orders are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and in accordance with paragraph 183 of the decision of Ellis J of the High Court of New Zealand, registered in proceedings NSD1665 of 2015 at orders 35, 36, 37 to 40, the Court orders as follows: (a) the permanent suppression of the parties' names and any other information that could identify SM, including her occupation, employment, history and health, howsoever (to be described as the identifying information), whether in the proceedings or in any related proceedings or otherwise; (b) the prohibition of any publication past, present, future, of any identifying information so defined; (c) subject to paragraphs 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) below, the confidential exhibit shall not be published and be placed in a sealed envelope; (d) any reference to any person / property / judgment listed in column B of the confidential exhibit, which is attached to these orders, must be by their respective pseudonym listed in column A of that exhibit; (e) leave is granted for SM to disclose any part of the confidential exhibit as and when necessary for enforcing orders made in the proceedings or any related proceedings; (f) the prohibition of any recipient of the confidential exhibit from further disclosing the confidential exhibit without SM's written consent; (g) the suppression of the originating application and the two affidavits of LFDB, filed on 12 February 2016 in this Court, and the notice of appearance, filed on 2 March 2016 in this Court, on the basis that they disclose details identified at paragraph 1(a) above; and (h) the applicants to re-file the originating application and two affidavits of LFDB, filed on 12 February 2016, and the notice of appearance, filed on 2 March 2016, with the identifying details of the parties amended in accordance with the above suppression regime. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GRIFFITHS J: 1 The respondent seeks orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act). The Court is empowered to make such orders if inter alia it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. 2 The background to the matter, in broad terms, is as follows. The parties have been in protracted litigation for many years, primarily in the New Zealand Courts. The proceedings have occurred after a breakdown in the personal relationship between the respondent and the first applicant. There have also been previous proceedings in this Court relating to the registration and setting aside of orders made by the High Court of New Zealand in which similar orders were made (see LFDB v SM [2015] FCA 725 and LFDB v SM (No 2) [2015] FCA 1013). The then Federal Magistrates Court of Australia also suppressed the parties' names in LFDB v SM [2011] FMCA 892. Suppression or non-publication orders have been made in virtually all of the New Zealand proceedings. 3 It is evident that one of the bases for the suppression orders in the New Zealand proceedings is the fact that the respondent has been determined to be a "vulnerable person" within the meaning of ss 11B-11D of the Family Court Act 1980 (NZ). 4 The current proceedings were commenced on 12 February 2016 and seek to have set aside certain orders made on 16 December 2015 under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth). 5 The applicants did not oppose the respondent's application under s 37AF of the FCA Act. 6 I accept the respondent's submission that, as a matter of judicial comity, this Court should act conformably with the New Zealand Courts and suppress the parties' names and because it is also in the due administration of justice to do so. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths. Associate: Dated: 16 March 2016 SCHEDULE OF PARTIES NSD 1665 of 2015 Applicants Second Applicant: DBA(AU) Third Applicant: DBA(AU) as trustee for DPT Fourth Applicant: SE Fifth Applicant: BWP