Page:ESafety Commissioner v X Corp.pdf/23

 Disposition of the application to extend the injunction

63 The application to extend the interlocutory injunction will be refused. I will reserve the question of costs.

Suppression orders

64 At the hearing on 10 May 2024 I made orders under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act) prohibiting disclosure of certain evidence. The orders were not opposed by any party. However, because orders of this kind involve a departure from the principle of open justice (the importance of which is affirmed by s 37AE of the Federal Court Act), such orders should not go unnoticed and some brief reasons should be given for making them.

65 Order 1 of the orders made on 10 May prohibits disclosure of:

(a) the particular URLs which contain the stabbing video; and

(b) the names and contact details of employees of the Australian Communications and Media Authority who work to the Commissioner.

66 Disclosure of the URLs containing the stabbing video would advertise where the stabbing video can be viewed on X and facilitate access to the video by any user of the platform who is able to circumvent X Corp's geoblocking. This would undermine what the Commissioner is seeking to achieve by bringing the proceeding and compromise the utility of the injunction that the Commissioner is seeking. I was satisfied that an order preventing disclosure of this information before the proceeding is determined was justified on the ground set out in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act: that the order is necessary "to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice".

67 The evidence supporting the suppression of the names and details of the Commissioner's officers was contained in an affidavit affirmed by Mr Toby Dagg which I was also satisfied should be suppressed. That evidence persuaded me that, in the heated political environment surrounding the removal order and its enforcement, disclosure of the names of individual officers could be prejudicial to their safety. The same is true of the details of communications which are recited in Mr Dagg's affidavit. I was satisfied that the suppression of this information was justified on the ground set out in s 37AG(1)(c): the order is "necessary to protect the safety of any person". I was asked to make this order effective for a period of two years or until further order and agreed that that was appropriate. eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499