covid19-law.com.au
1. Open Justice
A. Legislation
Victoria:
Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) amended by the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Vic).
Victoria has expressly amended its Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) in response to the pandemic. The COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Vic) inserted a new Pt 6A into the Open Courts Act (Vic), the purpose of which is to temporarily change the operation of that Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (s 33A). Division 2 provides for “modified access and procedure” or “MAP” orders, which is an order to, relevantly, require that a proceeding or hearing must be held by audio visual link or audio link. Section 33K in Div 3 provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, certain measures imposed by a court or tribunal do not breach the rules of law relating to open justice.
Tasmania:
Made under the COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 (Tas):
Further legislation relating to audio visual links and audio links is set out in the Hearings by Alternative Means section of this Chapter.
B. Cases
The Federal Court of Australia has considered the requirements of open justice in the context of COVID-19 physical distancing measures.
The Court has observed that the demands of open justice can be met in the context of virtual hearings, by making appropriate orders and arrangements to ensure the proceedings are fully accessible and can be observed by the public: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v GetSwift Limited [2020] FCA 504, [41].
As part of its COVID-19 response, the Federal Court has exercised its power to publish judgment and pronounce orders from chambers, rather than in open court: Bank of Queensland Limited v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 442, relying on ss 17(2), 23 and 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rr 1.32 and 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
In GrainCorp Limited, in the matter of GrainCorp Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 460, the Federal Court considered how best to conduct a second hearing for approval of a scheme of arrangement under the s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), in circumstances where the hearing was required to be conducted by telephone in accordance with the Court’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic (at [13]). The Court relevantly made orders directing that any person wishing to appear to oppose approval of the scheme of arrangement do so by contacting Markovic J’s Associate in advance (at [13]).
A. Legislation
Victoria:
Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) amended by the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Vic).
Victoria has expressly amended its Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) in response to the pandemic. The COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (Vic) inserted a new Pt 6A into the Open Courts Act (Vic), the purpose of which is to temporarily change the operation of that Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (s 33A). Division 2 provides for “modified access and procedure” or “MAP” orders, which is an order to, relevantly, require that a proceeding or hearing must be held by audio visual link or audio link. Section 33K in Div 3 provides that, for the avoidance of doubt, certain measures imposed by a court or tribunal do not breach the rules of law relating to open justice.
Tasmania:
Made under the COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 (Tas):
- Notice under Section 20 (Proceedings of courts, Tribunals, &c., may be authorised to not be required to be held in public) - Justices Act 1959, Sentencing Act 1997
- Notice under Section 20 (Proceedings of courts, Tribunals, &c., may be authorised to not be required to be held in public) - Justices Act 1959, Criminal Code Act 1924, Sentencing Act 1997, Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932
Further legislation relating to audio visual links and audio links is set out in the Hearings by Alternative Means section of this Chapter.
B. Cases
The Federal Court of Australia has considered the requirements of open justice in the context of COVID-19 physical distancing measures.
The Court has observed that the demands of open justice can be met in the context of virtual hearings, by making appropriate orders and arrangements to ensure the proceedings are fully accessible and can be observed by the public: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v GetSwift Limited [2020] FCA 504, [41].
As part of its COVID-19 response, the Federal Court has exercised its power to publish judgment and pronounce orders from chambers, rather than in open court: Bank of Queensland Limited v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 442, relying on ss 17(2), 23 and 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and rr 1.32 and 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
In GrainCorp Limited, in the matter of GrainCorp Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 460, the Federal Court considered how best to conduct a second hearing for approval of a scheme of arrangement under the s 411 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), in circumstances where the hearing was required to be conducted by telephone in accordance with the Court’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic (at [13]). The Court relevantly made orders directing that any person wishing to appear to oppose approval of the scheme of arrangement do so by contacting Markovic J’s Associate in advance (at [13]).
|
Image credit: Fusion Medical Animation
|
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by SiteGround