Federal Court of Australia

Neve v LVMH Perfume & Cosmetics Group Pty Limited (Suppression Order) [2026] FCA 108

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    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 be 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)    the Originating Application filed on 8 December 2025;

(b)    the Statement of Claim filed on 8 December 2025;

(c)    the Amended Originating Application filed on 3 February 2026;

(d)    the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 3 February 2026;

(e)    any Defence due to be filed on 24 February 2026;

(f)    any Reply due to be filed on 3 March 2026;

(g)    the respondent’s Interlocutory Application filed on 5 February 2026; and

(h)    the Affidavit of Rick Catanzariti affirmed on 5 February 2026 in support of the respondent’s application.

2.    Order 1 above apply until the earlier of 30 April 2026 or 7 days after the mediation process ordered on 23 January 2026 is terminated.

3.    The parties have liberty to apply for an extension of these orders, provided such application is made 14 days before the expiry of the period in order 2 above.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PERRAM J:

1    The respondent, LVMH Perfume & Cosmetics Group Pty Limited, is an Australian subsidiary of the LVMH Group which is a global conglomerate specialising in luxury goods. The respondent develops, produces, markets and distributes perfumes, skincare and makeup products in Australia. The applicant, Ms Neve, is employed by the respondent and commenced this proceeding by filing an originating application dated 4‍ December 2025 which was accompanied by a statement of claim (both of which were subsequently amended). Ms‍ Neve seeks relief for alleged contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and breach of an implied term of her employment by the respondent.

2    On 23 January 2026, I made consent orders referring the parties to mediation before a registrar of the Court. The Court has since received applications to access the Court file from two media organisations, The Australian Financial Review and The Australian. These applications were dated 23 January 2026 and 2 February 2026.

3    On 5 February 2026, the respondent filed the present application for suppression and non-publication orders over the documents on the Court file and the pleadings to be filed until 7 days after the termination of the mediation process. On 10 February 2026, the Court informed The Australian Financial Review and The Australian that it had received the respondent’s application and asked them to indicate whether they wished to be heard on the application given that their access requests are potentially affected by the outcome of the application. They were asked to indicate their position by 13 February 2026. No response was received.

4    In relation to its application, the respondent says such an order would enhance the likelihood of achieving settlement at the mediation. Ms Neve neither opposes nor consents to the orders sought.

5    Publication of the allegations in the statement of claim is likely to cause reputational harm to the respondent. It is also likely to negatively affect the prospects of a successful mediation in the sense that maintaining the confidentiality of the allegations may be something which affects the course of negotiations. I‍ am therefore satisfied that this is an appropriate case to make a suppression and non-publication order over the documents sought under the principle in Saw v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2024] FCA 1210; 305 FCR 340.

6    However, the confidentiality order should not apply for the period sought by the respondent. The mediation date is not yet known and the order as sought would have the excessive effect of allowing the respondent to keep the confidentiality regime in place so long as the mediation process is on foot. The confidentiality order should expire on a specified date and the parties allowed to apply for an extension of that period prior to that expiry if it realistically appears that negotiations are continuing or to allow the parties to apply for post-settlement orders.

7    The orders I will make are these:

(1)    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 be 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)    the Originating Application filed on 8 December 2025;

(b)    the Statement of Claim filed on 8 December 2025;

(c)    the Amended Originating Application filed on 3 February 2026;

(d)    the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 3 February 2026;

(e)    any Defence due to be filed on 24 February 2026;

(f)    any Reply due to be filed on 3 March 2026;

(g)    the respondent’s Interlocutory Application filed on 5 February 2026; and

(h)    the Affidavit of Rick Catanzariti affirmed on 5 February 2026 in support of the respondent’s application.

(2)    Order 1 above apply until the earlier of 30 April 2026 or 7 days after the mediation process ordered on 23 January 2026 is terminated.

(3)    The parties have liberty to apply for an extension of these orders, provided such application is made 14 days before the expiry of the period in order 2 above.

Associate:

Dated:    16 February 2026