Federal Court of Australia

Ahmed v Sijabat (Trustee), in the matter of Ahmed (Bankrupt) [2025] FCA 325

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application for a suppression order is refused.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MURPHY J:

1    The applicant, Mohamoud Ahmed, a bankrupt, lodged an urgent application dated 23 December 2024 seeking leave to travel overseas to see his ill grandmother, as permission had been refused by his trustee in bankruptcy. On 24 December 2024 I made orders to permit that travel, conditional on the applicant providing certain information to the trustee in bankruptcy. I did not provide written reasons in respect of that decision.

2    The applicant has now sought a suppression order in relation to the whole Court file, or in the alternative, in relation to various filed materials which the applicant has sought additional time to identify. The respondent was not required to make submissions on this issue.

3    The Court has power to make a suppression order under ss 37AF and 37AG of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the grounds there specified. The applicant’s submissions identify the grounds he relies upon as:

(a)    the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice; or

(b)    the order is necessary to protect the applicant’s personal safety.

4    The applicant made a vague allegation about an aspect of his personal circumstances, unrelated to his bankruptcy, and asserted that documents on the file which go to those circumstances may cause prejudice to the proper administration of justice or give rise to a risk to his personal safety. I need not identify the particular aspect of the applicant’s personal circumstances on which he relied.

5    But the applicant put on nothing on affidavit to support the allegation that disclosure might give rise to a risk to his personal safety and his submissions did not identify the particular documents about which he was concerned. Having reviewed the file I can see nothing sufficient to justify the making of a suppression order on either of the grounds advanced.

6    Mere embarrassment or reputational harm does not suffice to ground a suppression order: Porter v Australian Broadcasting Commission [2021] FCA 863 at [86] (Jagot J) quoting Keyzer v La Trobe University [2019] FCA 646; 165 ALD 93 at [29] (Anastassiou J). The application does not meet the high bar of “necessity” as explained in Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; 240 CLR 651 at [30]-[31] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ).

7    Accordingly, I refuse the application for a suppression order. Having perused the documents on the court file I can accept that their disclosure may cause the applicant embarrassment or reputational harm, but that is not enough. I saw nothing on the file which could support the proposition that its disclosure may cause prejudice to the proper administration of justice or give rise to the applicant facing a risk to his personal safety and, as I have said, the applicant put on nothing on affidavit to support those allegations. The applicant sought further time to identify a subset of the documents on the file which he says will ground his application, but I am not prepared to provide the applicant further time. First, the applicant had ample time to identify the documents that he said would cause him difficulty. Second, in circumstances where I have reviewed the entire file there is no utility in granting the applicant additional time to identify a subset of the documents.

Associate:

Dated:    8 April 2025