Case: John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court [2005] NSWCA 101
Outcome: cited
Securities and Investments Commission, inthe matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 (11 April 2006) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Court of Australia You are here: &nbsp; AustLII &gt;&gt; Databases &gt;&gt; Federal Court of Australia &gt;&gt; 2006 &gt;&gt; [2006] FCA 407 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ Help ] Australian Securities and Investments Commission, inthe matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 (11 April 2006) Last Updated: 12 April 2006 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - media access to affidavits in evidence affidavits filed in ex parte proceedings for interim preservation orders exhibiting transcripts of examinations under s 19 of the ASIC Act principle of open justice objections based on speculative risks access permitted Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1323(3) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 50 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (Cth) ss 19, 68 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2001] NSWSC 496 cited Seven Network Ltd v News Limited (No 9) [2005] FCA 1394 cited R v Davis (1995) 57 FCR 412 cited John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court [2005] NSWCA 101 cited Gangemi v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] FCA 494 ; (2003) 129 FCR 284 cited Federal Court Rules O 46 r 6 IN THE MATTER OF RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 099 071 968); WESTPOINT REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954); BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357); REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY, GRAEME JOHN RUNDLE, CEDRIC RICHARD PALMER BECK, JOHN NORMAN DIXON, RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PYT LTD (ACN 099 071 968), WESTPOINT REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954) and BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357) and REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) WAD 83 OF 2006 FRENCH J 11 APRIL 2006 PERTH IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 83 OF 2006 IN THE MATTER OF RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 099 071 968) WESTPOINT REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954) BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357) REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION PLAINTIFF AND: NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY FIRST DEFENDANT GRAEME JOHN RUNDLE SECOND DEFENDANT CEDRIC RICHARD PALMER BECK THIRD DEFENDANT JOHN NORMAN DIXON FOURTH DEFENDANT RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 099 071 968) FIFTH DEFENDANT WESTPOINT REALITY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954) SIXTH DEFENDANT BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357) SEVENTH DEFENDANT REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) EIGHTH DEFENDANT JUDGE: FRENCH J DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2006 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. John Fairfax Holdings Limited, Nationwide News Ltd and West Australian Newspapers Ltd have leave to inspect the following documents filed in these proceedings: (i) The affidavits of Richard Warren Gomm sworn on 29 March 2006. (ii) The affidavit of Oran Zohar sworn on 29 March 2006. (iii) The affidavit of Kevin Chin sworn on 30 March 2006. (iv) The affidavit of Marcus Essex Claridge sworn on 30 March 2006. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules . IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 83 OF 2006 IN THE MATTER OF RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 099 071 968) WESTPOINT REALTY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954) BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357) REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION PLAINTIFF AND: NORMAN PHILLIP CAREY FIRST DEFENDANT GRAEME JOHN RUNDLE SECOND DEFENDANT CEDRIC RICHARD PALMER BECK THIRD DEFENDANT JOHN NORMAN DIXON FOURTH DEFENDANT RICHSTAR ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 099 071 968) FIFTH DEFENDANT WESTPOINT REALITY PTY LTD (ACN 050 218 954) SIXTH DEFENDANT BOWESCO PTY LTD (ACN 008 915 357) SEVENTH DEFENDANT REDCHIME PTY LTD (ACN 117 947 805) EIGHTH DEFENDANT JUDGE: FRENCH J DATE: 11 APRIL 2006 PLACE: PERTH RULING ON APPLICATION BY NON-PARTIES FOR ACCESS TO AFFIDAVITS Introduction 1 The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has commenced proceedings in this Court for the appointment of receivers to the property of various persons and companies associated with the Westpoint Property and Finance Group of Companies. On 30 March 2006, Siopis J made orders, on an ex parte application, for the interim preservation of the defendants' assets and other incidental orders. The substantive application for the appointment of receivers is to be heard tomorrow. Certain media organisations have requested leave to inspect the affidavits filed to date including those relied upon in the ex parte proceedings. That access is opposed by the defendants. For the reasons now published I will allow the media organisations to inspect the affidavits in evidence in the ex parte proceedings. 17 Open justice was described in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court [2005] NSWCA 101 by Spigelman CJ as a principle and not 'a free-standing right'. Access by non-parties to documents filed in proceedings in the Court is governed by the provisions of O 46 r 6. There is a general right to search and inspect documents in the class set out in O 46 r 6(2) unless the Court or a judge has ordered that the document is confidential. The list of documents specified in subrule 6(2) does not extend to affidavits filed in the proceeding. Subrule 6(3) requires that the leave of the court or a judge be given before a non-party can inspect such documents. No distinction is made in that respect between affidavits which have been filed and not read in evidence and affidavits which have been read in evidence. Nevertheless, it is clear that there will be a far stronger case for access by the public to affidavits which form part of the evidence before the Court than there will be to affidavits which are not in evidence.