Kweifio-Okai v RMIT [1997] IRCA 259

DECISION NO:259/97 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA INDUSTRIAL LAW - PROHIBITION OF PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE - consideration of the proper administration of justice and prejudice to the applicant - whether 'prejudice' refers to the inherent risks arising from the outcome of a proceeding - prejudice already accrued - likelihood of remedy - COSTS - whether initiated without reasonable cause - Workplace Relations Act 1996 s347, 480 ABC v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 SRD v Australian Securities Commission and Another (1994) 123 ALR 730 KWEIFIO-OKAI -V- RMIT VI 2661 of 1996 PARKINSON JR MELBOURNE 15 August 1997 IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) VI 2661 of 1996 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) B E T W E E N: George KWEIFIO-OKAI Applicant AND: RMIT Respondent JUDICIAL REGISTRAR : PARKINSON PLACE : MELBOURNE DATED : 15 AUGUST 1997 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 11 August 1997 be dismissed. 2. The application for costs made by the respondent be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) VI 2661 of 1996 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) B E T W E E N: George KWEIFIO-OKAI Applicant AND: RMIT Respondent JUDICIAL REGISTRAR : PARKINSON PLACE : MELBOURNE DATED : 15 AUGUST 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (delivered ex-tempore - revised from transcript) This is my decision delivered ex-tempore in relation to an application made by Notice of Motion by Dr. Kweifio-Okai, filed 11 August 1997. This is an application made pursuant to Section 480 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.('the Act') The applicant seeks an order from the Court that: "Anything pertaining to their case as presented to date or to be presented at future appeals to the Court should not be made public without my consent." Whilst the interests of a litigant, in this case Dr. Kweifio-Okai, in seeking the confidentiality order are relevant to the considerations of the application made pursuant to s480 of the Act, equally important in proceedings such as these is the consideration of the proper administration of justice. This consideration, in my view, involves matters such as ensuring that the actions of the Courts and their proceedings are open to scrutiny, public discussion and consideration and are transparent. The grounds the applicant relies upon in two respects do not provide sufficient basis for an order of confidentiality to be made. The first ground in the Notice of Motion, that the decision of 25 July 1997 is misleading and wrong, is a ground which is best addressed by way of a review of the decision. I note this is a proceeding which has been issued by the applicant recently. The second ground in the Notice of Motion, that written communications to certain employees of the respondent contained in the judgment by Judicial Registrar Parkinson were private and confidential and should remain so, was not a matter raised at any time during the course of the trial of the matter. A number of the documents to which the applicant upon the Notice of Motion refers, were tendered without objection, in the course of the proceedings, at first instance. In some cases the documents were tendered by the applicant's counsel, on the applicant's behalf. As to the third ground, that publication of the case would damage the reputation and prospects of employment for the future of the applicant. Whilst it is clear that the authorities such as those to which the Court was referred by the respondent, ABC v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 and SRD v Australian Securities Commission and Another (1994) 123 ALR 730, clearly state the appropriateness of considerations of prejudice to the applicant, in my view the prejudice considered therein does not refer to the inherent risks associated with the outcome of a proceeding being unfavourable to an applicant in the proceeding.