Suppression order scrutiny
A recent spate of suppression orders pursued in high-profile cases has reignited debate over the tensions they create in the court system.
Recent high-profile lawsuits against Super Retail Group, Seven Network and the now wrapped-up case against WiseTech CEO Richard White have all involved the pursuit of suppression orders, with varying degrees of success.
These orders can be frustrating for journalists, of course. But, more significantly, these cases have reignited debate over the tensions between suppression and transparency in the justice system.
In the Super Retail case, Federal Court of Australia Judge Michael Lee — who gave a recent speech on the national approach to open justice — denied suppression orders over the terms of an alleged settlement agreement between the company and former executive Rebecca Farrell.
The retailer recently gained permission to appeal Lee’s decision, arguing it has undisputed rights of confidence because the terms of any arrangement were made as the company tried to head off then-anticipated litigation. Lee’s initial decision emphasised the importance of open justice, saying suppression should only be granted where necessary.
