Federal Court of Australia

McGrane v Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 944

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The respondent’s Interlocutory Application, dated 30 May 2025, be allowed.

2.    Until the later of 31 October 2025 or 7 days after the mediation process ordered on 14 May 2025 is terminated, pursuant to s 37AF(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) and on the ground in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Act that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, the following documents filed in this Court be ordered confidential for the purposes of r 2.32(3)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and their publication (except to the parties’ legal representatives) be prohibited:

(a)    Originating Application dated and filed on 9 April 2025;

(b)    Statement of Claim dated and filed on 9 April 2025;

(c)    Defence dated 16 May 2025 and filed on 19 May 2025;

(d)    Affidavit of Ruveni Desaa Kelleher affirmed on 30 May 2025 in support of the Interlocutory Application; and

(e)    Outline of submissions dated 30 May 2025 and filed on 2 June 2025 by the respondent in respect of the Interlocutory Application.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript

BROMWICH J:

1    The respondent, Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd, has been the employer of the applicant, Mr Matthew McGrane, for some 22 years. As a result of events that took place in the middle of 2024, Mr McGrane commenced this proceeding on 9 April 2025 by way of an originating application and statement of claim. Mr McGrane makes allegations of adverse action under a number of provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He seeks declarations of contravention, compensation and civil penalties.

2    By orders made on 14 May 2025, I made provision for the filing of a defence by Seven, any reply by Mr McGrane, a foreshadowed interlocutory application (IA) by Seven seeking confidentiality, suppression and/or non-publication orders and mediation by a registrar of this Court.

3    In accordance with the 14 May 2025 orders, Seven filed its defence on 16 May 2025. That defence not only denies Mr McGrane’s allegations, but also makes a number of allegations itself. Numerous third parties are named in the pleadings filed by both sides.

4    Substantially in accordance with the 14 May 2025 orders, Seven lodged its IA for filing just after 4.30 pm on 30 May 2025 (taken to be filed on the next business day, 2 June 2025). That IA was listed for hearing and heard today, 12 August 2025. The IA was supported by an affidavit affirmed by a solicitor for Seven, Ms Ruveni Kelleher, and by written submissions. Mr McGrane advised my chambers by email that he did not oppose the orders sought, and elected not to appear at the hearing of the IA.

5    The IA sought suppression and non-publication orders for reasons deposed to and explained in Ms Kelleher’s affidavit. The only reason that I found compelling was that the orders sought protect the proper administration of justice in avoiding the impediments to a successful mediation that could arise if the pleadings and the material relied upon for the IA were not the subject of such orders. Lesser grounds advanced such as avoiding workplace disharmony by reason of allegations made by either side did not, in my view, meet the threshold of necessity in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act).

6    I have been greatly assisted by the decision of Perram J made on 18 October 2024 in Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2024] FCA 1210; 305 FCR 340. The application also made by Seven in that case was on all fours with the application made in this case, although of course the facts and details are necessarily different. The only notable points of departure between this case and Saw v Seven is that:

(a)    Ms Saw, also a journalist, opposed the suppression and non-publication orders sought and ultimately granted by his Honour; and

(b)    Seven now seeks a suppression and non-publication order until 7 days after the mediation is terminated, not just until that mediation takes place.

7    The IA needed to be determined swiftly because it is standing in the way of the mediation taking place.

8    Having read Saw v Seven before the hearing, and having considered it more closely at the IA hearing and after that hearing, I am in total agreement with Perram J’s reasoning and conclusions at [4] to [21], noting that his Honour’s observations in that case are also mostly applicable in the circumstances of this case. I adopt that reasoning and those conclusions for the purpose of these reasons.

9    I am satisfied that the disclosure of the originating application, the statement of claim, the defence, the affidavit in support of the IA and the written submissions in support of the IA would, at this stage, be prejudicial to the proper administration of justice because it would likely imperil the success of the pending mediation: see s 37AF(1) and s 37AG(1)(a) of the Act. I am therefore satisfied that suppression and non-publication orders expressed by reference to confidentiality as referred to in r 2.32(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) should be made, albeit cast somewhat differently to what was sought. These orders will apply until 7 days after the mediation terminates, or 31 October 2025, whichever occurs later. These orders do not extend to cover the IA itself.

10    Whatever the outcome of the mediation, if any further suppression and/or non-publication orders are sought, a fresh application will need to be made by Seven.

Associate:

Dated:    12 August 2025