Sheila Mary Rimmer v Ormond College Council [1995] IRCA 435

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application for suppression - Name of applicant and respondent to be suppressed - Whether or not prejudice to the administration of justice - Balance between prejudice to the parties and countervailing public interest in open justice. Industrial Relations Act 1988 s170EA Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s50 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 SRD v Australian Securities Commission (1994) 123 ALR 730 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Cox (1989) 87 ALR 163 No. VI 4407 of 1995 SHEILA MARY RIMMER v ORMOND COLLEGE COUNCIL Marshall J Melbourne 1 September 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT ) ) OF AUSTRALIA ) ) No. VI 4407 of 1995 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) BETWEEN: Sheila Mary Rimmer Applicant AND: Ormond College Council Respondent JUDGE: Marshall J PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 1 September 1995 ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent's motion, notice of which was given on 31 August 1995, is dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT ) ) OF AUSTRALIA ) ) No. VI 4407 of 1995 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) BETWEEN: Sheila Mary Rimmer Applicant AND: Ormond College Council Respondent JUDGE: Marshall J PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 1 September 1995 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter the respondent has moved the Court for orders as follows: "1. That all papers on the file of the Court be kept confidential to the parties. 2. That the names of the Applicant and the Respondent be removed from the public record and replaced with the letters X and Y. 3. That there be no order as to costs." As the applicant consents to the making of orders in the above terms, the Court was so moved without the respondent's filing of a notice of motion. See Order 19 rule 2(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Court Rules. Oral evidence was called by the respondent to support the making of the orders sought; especially proposed orders 1 and 2 above. The effect of such evidence was as follows:- 1. The respondent has been over-exposed to media attention as a result of what was known as the "Gregory affair", which became the subject of a recent book by Ms Helen Garner. 2. The respondent has grave concerns that its viability may be affected by further adverse publicity. 3. The respondent is concerned about potential disruption to its students and harassment of them by the media. The application, the subject of the orders sought, was filed by the applicant on 21 August 1995 pursuant to s170EA Industrial Relations Act 1988. The applicant also sought to invoke the accrued jurisdiction of the Court to obtain damages at common law for wrongful dismissal and breach of the respondent's "duty of trust and confidence". On 30 August 1995 the respondent's solicitors filed a notice of appearance on its behalf. On the same day the applicant's solicitors filed a notice of discontinuance. Additionally on the same day the respondent's solicitors wrote to the Registrar of the Court and advised that the matters in dispute had been resolved. The consent order referred to above was enclosed. The letter stated, in part, that: "The matters in dispute between the parties have now been resolved. The parties desire that these orders be made as soon as possible to protect both the Applicant and the Respondent from any adverse publicity."