New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Optus Internet Pty Ltd v Roberts [1999] NSWSC 1285 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Equity FILE NUMBER(S) : 4595/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 November 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 November 1999 Optus Internet Pty Ltd (P1) Dingo Blue Pty Ltd (P2) Microplex Pty Ltd (P3) Ben Roberts (D1) PARTIES : David Proctor (D2) David Hill (D3) Andrew McGregor (D4) Adrian Morgan (D5) Hamish Golden (D6) Capital Networks Pty Ltd (D7) JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J P H Greenwood SC (P1-3) COUNSEL : 2D in person A McMurran, solicitor (3D) No appearances (1D, 4-7D) Minter Ellison (P1-3) SOLICITORS : 2D in person Heidtman & Co (3D) CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [31] - Courts and judges generally - Courts - Proceedings in open court or in camera - Publication of orders - Exception to general rule - Fact that party is sitting for examinations and does not wish press publicity not proper ground for non publication order. ACTS CITED : Supreme Court Act 1970, s 80 DECISION : Application for non publication order refused. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION HAMILTON J WEDNESDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 1999 4595/99 OPTUS INTERNET PTY LTD & 2 ORS v BEN ROBERTS & ORS JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 In this matter the question of an interlocutory regime has been settled between the plaintiff and the third defendant and I have been handed minutes of orders which the Court is asked to make by consent, signed by the plaintiffs' solicitor and by the third defendant's solicitor. The third defendant's solicitor, however, left the precincts of the Court before the Court was asked by senior counsel for the plaintiffs to make the agreed orders. That creates no difficulty except in relation to the fourth order in the short minutes. That is in the following terms: "The name of the third defendant not to be published." 2 I am told by Mr Greenwood, of Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, that the insertion of that order was requested by Mr McMurran, solicitor for the third defendant, on the basis that the third defendant is at present sitting for his Higher School Certificate examination and does not wish to be subject to press publicity at the present time. Mr Greenwood has indicated to me that the plaintiffs have no objection to such an order being made, but that the request for the making of such an order was made with the realisation on both his part and Mr McMurran's that the Court may not be prepared to make such an order. The order, if it were to be made, would be made in exercise of the power conferred by s 80 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 3 The only material in support of the order is the bald statement about the HSC conveyed from the Bar table, which I have already set out. I am not prepared simply on that basis to make any form of non publication order. I have therefore struck order 4 from the short minutes as presented to me, but I am otherwise prepared to make orders in the form submitted on the basis that the plaintiffs proffer to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages which, by their counsel, they have done. On that basis, there will be orders in accordance with the short minutes initialled by me and placed with the papers. …oOo… Last Modified: 06/26/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.