Insights and inspiration
What's in a Name?
14 October 2015
At Pearson Emerson Meyer our lawyers all take care to keep up with the law and that means keeping up also with reports of decided cases. Keeping up to date is necessary but it can be a bit of a headache.
The headache is enormously exacerbated by the courts' (in my view) obsessive focus on confidentiality.
All cases used to be reported under the names of the parties to them. This all changed when a case came up between two well-known medical specialists. After that, and the fuss that ensued, the court decided to use initials. However, there is only a limited number of combinations of initials and many cases that lawyers needed to refer to had exactly the same initials. That was a headache.
The court then decided to anonymise cases by making up names. That worked quite well except in the case of one particular judge who used names from racing and other sports activities, and some people thought that was a bit light hearted. So we have made-up names for the names of the cases but, unfortunately, the degree of anonymisation is now at the point where nobody and nothing is identified in the report of the case.
Witnesses are given letters ("Mr X"), countries and towns are called "country A" or "town X", and so it goes.
Often this is not too difficult but in a recent case, anonymously reported as Joss V Chadwell, the headache reached epic proportions. This is because each of the parties had multiple relationships, with Mr B, Mr H, Mr Q, Mr X and tellingly, Mr OO. They were in country K, country E, country J, country BB, country PP, country QQ; they lived in or owned property in, either separately or together, C town, D town, suburb G, L town, N town (M Street), P street, C town, R town, S street, T town, the U house, the V house and the W house, suburb Y, Z town (AA Street) CC town, the town of EG, DD street, R town, EE town, FF street, GG town, HH town, II town, JJ town, KK street, LL town, MM street, suburb G, and suburb RR.
This was also a case that had many witnesses, and I can assure you there is an alphabet soup of letters representing the identity of the witnesses.
This was a case where the Court had to decide whether or not the parties Mr Joss and Mr Chadwell had been in a de facto relationship. That is always a difficult task and the facts here were very complicated and took the judge a long time to go through in his judgment. Perhaps it is therefore understandable that the judge, having waded knee deep through this alphabet soup, reached his conclusion in a very few lines indeed, saying in the circumstances that he was not persuaded that there was a de facto relationship between the parties. I am sure he had a headache by the end of it.
Disclaimer: The articles on this page are correct at the time of writing but changes in the law or procedure may affect the accuracy of the information. Should you require any specific legal advice please contact
Level 15, 175 Liverpool Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
PO Box 21117
World Square NSW 2002 Australia
175 Liverpool Street Parking Station, Entrance via 26 Nithsdale Street
Phone 1800 7275 464 - Closes at Midnight
Goulburn Street Parking Station, Cnr Goulburn & Elizabeth Streets
Phone 1800 727 5464 - Closes at Midnight
The content on this site is not intended to provide legal advice. It is general information only. You should not rely upon it as legal advice. If you would like to discuss anything of interest or concern to you, please contact us. Nothing arising from the information on this site is intended to create a legal relationship between us and any reader.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.