Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AA v Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 236 Hearing dates: 11 March 2016 Date of orders: 11 March 2016 Decision date: 11 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: (1) The Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym AA. (2) Pursuant to s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act, 2010 (NSW), the name and address of the Plaintiff, and any member of their families, are not to be published without the leave of the Court by reason of s8 (1) (e) of that Act. (3) No order as to costs. Catchwords: PROCEDURE – application to commence proceedings by plaintiff using a pseudonym and for suppression of the plaintiff's identity – plaintiff sexually abused as a minor by defendants – claims made in respect of abuse Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Witness v Marsden & Anor [2000] NSWCA 52 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: AA (Plaintiff) Satyananda Ashram Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Sharman Okan (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Lonergan SC (Plaintiff) No appearances (Defendants) Solicitors: Carroll & O'Dea (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2016/77510 Judgment 1. The Plaintiff, by Notice of Motion, seeks leave to bring proceedings using a pseudonym and asks that the court make a suppression or non-publication order under s7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act 2010 (NSW), in relation to the identity of the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff claims against the defendants in relation to physical and sexual abuse alleged to have been suffered at Mangrove Mountain, Ashram, in the 1970s and 1980s when the Plaintiff was a minor. 3. The First Defendant is sued as having vicarious liability for a deceased person who is said to have committed the assaults and sexual assaults on the Plaintiff. The Second Defendant is sued as a direct perpetrator. 4. The Plaintiff seeks the use of a pseudonym and the associated orders to protect her privacy in the matter. There is a psychiatric report from Dr Wendy Triggs dated 24 March, 2015, which describes the psychiatric problems from which the Plaintiff suffers as a result of the sexual and physical abuse. 5. The Plaintiff is now a middle aged woman who has two children, one of whom is an adult and one of whom is a very young person. The Plaintiff is concerned that the proceedings, and that the events in respect of which the proceedings are brought, should not come to the attention, not only of those children, but also of her father, who, independently suffers mental health problems, as disclosed in a report from Associate Professor Quadrio tendered on this application. 6. The Plaintiff seeks an order under the Act on the basis of ground (e) in s 8 (1), that is, that the order is otherwise necessary in the public interest for the order to be made and that public interest significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice. 7. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Witness v Marsden [2000] NSWCA 52. In that case the trial judge, in the defamation proceedings brought by John Marsden against Channel 7, had refused the right for a witness, who was to give evidence in those proceedings, to use a pseudonym. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. In the course of so doing, Priestley JA said at [17]: In the present case it seems to me that the making of the pseudonym order asked for is likely to improve the chances of a just result being reached at the trial to an extent that significantly outweighs the small inroad the order will make upon the very powerful ideal of fully open trials. 1. The Court considered also at [140] that the effect on the family of the witness if his identity was revealed was a relevant consideration. Further, as Priestley JA noted at [14], the Court would remain open during the witness's evidence which would be given in open court but in a name other than his own. That will be the position in the present case. 2. As I have noted, the Plaintiff in that application was a mere witness in the proceedings. In the present case it is the Plaintiff herself who claims to have suffered the physical and sexual abuse who seeks to use a pseudonym for the protection of herself and members of her family 3. In my opinion, for reasons similar to those given in Witness v Marsden, the orders that are sought should be made. 4. The orders that I make are these: (1) The Plaintiff be granted leave to commence and continue these proceedings by a pseudonym AA. (2) Pursuant to s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act, 2010 (NSW), the name and address of the Plaintiff, and any member of their families, are not to be published without the leave of the Court by reason of s8 (1) (e) of that Act. (3) No order as to costs. ********** 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. Decision last updated: 14 March 2016