Suppression bid failed

Glenorchy GM wanted court claims kept secret, but his:

LAWYERS for Glenorchy City Council general manager Peter Brooks have failed in a bid to suppress details of his Supreme Court action against the Board of Inquiry.

Mr Brooks last month launched legal action against the board and its members, Barry Easter and Lynn Mason, saying he has been denied natural justice in the process and the inquiry was biased in its findings.

During the application to show cause earlier this month, Mr Brooks’ representatives Justin Zeeman and Shaun McElwaine SC argued that Associate Justice Stephen Holt should issue a suppression or non-publication order of the details of Mr Brooks’ claims against the board and its investigation.

However, the Mercury has successfully opposed the application.

Lawyer Daniel Zeeman argued that, rather than responding to the inquiry, Mr Brooks and his counsel had gambled on trying to stop it in the courts and the suppression request “flies in the face of the principal of justice.”

Associate Justice Holt said publication of the findings of the draft report — some of which have been published by the Mercury — would not interfere with the administration of justice.

“The prerequisite for the making of a suppression order, namely, that such an order is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice, not having been established, it follows that the application for the order must be refused,” he said.

In yesterday’s resumption of the application, Justin Zeeman argued for suppression, saying the claims against Mr Brooks were grossly defamatory and would have wide ranging implications, regardless of the outcome of any trial.

“The draft report contains serious allegations, including alleged breaches of statutory duties by the applicant, that go well beyond facts that are embarrassing, damaging and inconvenient facts,” he said.

He said it would “result in unacceptable consequences to the applicant’s status and employment as the general manager of the Glenorchy City Council, with the very real risk of associated disciplinary action or termination of employment.”

It also would be “reasonable to accept that prospective employers may be less willing to employ an individual who is the subject of the identified adverse draft findings.”

Associate Justice Holt’s ruling also said that in the event that the draft Board of Inquiry report was put into evidence, it would not be made the subject of a suppression order.