Article on Suppressing Information During Litigation
This article examines Gina Rinehart’s numerous attempts to suppress information and stay proceedings in the extraordinary litigation in the Rinehart family trust dispute. This litigation, while only at its pre-trial stage, has delivered significant judgments on the new legislative powers to depart from the principle of open justice and the law relating to stays of proceedings (stays of a substantive claim and stays pending an appeal to the High Court). This article analyses the principle of open justice and the power to depart from it at common law and under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). This legislation has national significance as it is the model statute that aims to be implemented in all Australian jurisdictions and is a Federal Bill. The Rinehart litigation is detailed in the article. The litigation proves that open justice continues to be fundamental under the model statute and that the media has an important role in ensuring its protection. Possible future questions under the statute could be about the meaning of ‘suppression’ and the operational differences in seeking review under the Federal and NSW model. The Rinehart litigation is significant as it has redefined the test for seeking a stay of orders pending proceedings in the High Court. The litigation also considered whether a claim can be stayed due to an agreement to use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Further, this litigation signals future legal development may occur on the issue of whether trustee disputes are arbitrable.