AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 3)

AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 3) [2025] FCA 1658 is a Federal Court decision about whether documents already on the court file could be removed, sealed and, in some cases, replaced with redacted versions after the parties settled two related proceedings.

The court was not deciding who should win the underlying employment dispute. It was deciding a procedural question about confidentiality, legal professional privilege, settlement and the limits of open justice. The result was a confined redaction-and-storage regime, not a blanket removal of everything the parties wanted hidden.

There were two related proceedings. The first, NSD 134 of 2025, was brought by AxiCorp as what Bromwich J called an anticipatory strike. AxiCorp wanted to prevent a former employee, identified by the pseudonym CABC, from disclosing confidential information said to consist of communications protected by legal professional privilege. The injunctive relief was not opposed.

That did not end the confidentiality issue. A media organisation later sought access to the pleading, process and evidence used in that injunction proceeding. AxiCorp then sought suppression of the same information and certain other information. Bromwich J had previously granted much of that relief, but only on a temporary basis linked to the end of the second proceeding.

The second proceeding, NSD 189 of 2025, was a substantive general protections application brought by CABC against AxiCorp. It was supported by a statement of claim. That proceeding was successfully mediated, and the parties entered into a deed of settlement.

The settlement did not stand alone. The judge said he had seen the deed and admitted into evidence the part recording that settlement was contingent on a consent order satisfactory to the parties being made. In other words, the parties had settled the broader dispute, but they still needed the court to approve what would happen to sensitive documents on the court file.

The application before Bromwich J concerned specific documents, not a general request for secrecy. In the AxiCorp proceeding, the affected documents were two affidavits of Jack Pembroke-Birss affirmed on 4 February 2025 and 12 February 2025. In the CABC proceeding, the affected documents were the statement of claim filed on 11 February 2025 and an affidavit of Jack Pembroke-Birss affirmed on 26 February 2025.

The judge explained that the parties' proposal changed over time. He had indicated preliminary views about the merits of what was originally sought, and the parties refined their position. The hearing was adjourned for several hours so they could reconsider the redactions. They then provided colour-coded highlighted versions of the statement of claim and the two affidavits that had been read in the injunction proceeding.

The colour coding mattered because it showed the court was not dealing with a single broad claim of confidentiality. Different colours reflected different reasons for redaction, including legal professional privilege, identification and other factors relevant to securing settlement. On resumption, a number of those proposed redactions were revisited before the final position was accepted.

The orders also dealt with annexure material. The 12 February 2025 affidavit was to be replaced by a version that redacted annexure JPB-14 in the same manner as the redactions made to the 4 February 2025 affidavit, and otherwise redacted the highlighted matter shown in the version provided to chambers on 16 December 2025.

The legal question was whether the court should make consent orders designed to suppress information in aid of settlement by removing documents from the court file, sealing them and replacing some of them with redacted versions.

Bromwich J said the core task was to strike an appropriate balance between two public interests. The first was the public interest in open justice, described by reference to s 37AE of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The second was the public interest in the administration of justice through the just resolution of disputes, described by reference to s 37M(1) of that Act.

The judge also considered rr 2.28(3) and 2.29(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which contemplate orders for removal and storage of documents. He drew guidance from Porter v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2021] FCA 863, where Jagot J had approved a regime involving removal and storage of unredacted pleadings and replacement with redacted versions. Bromwich J noted that in Porter the degree of redaction was treated as a limited infringement on open justice.

That comparison helped frame the issue here. The parties ultimately sought a similar replacement-and-storage regime, but in relation to a statement of claim and two affidavits that had been read before the judge in the injunction proceeding. The court therefore had to decide whether the proposed interference with public access was sufficiently confined.

One of the most useful parts of the judgment for business readers is the judge's treatment of document status. The parties sought a replacement-and-storage regime for the statement of claim and two affidavits that had been read in the injunction proceeding. Those documents had therefore become part of what the court had actually considered in open court, which meant open justice concerns were directly engaged.

By contrast, one affidavit in the general protections proceeding had been filed but not read. Bromwich J recorded that the parties sought to have that affidavit removed without replacement because, not having become evidence in the proceeding, it did not engage the open justice principle. The final orders reflect that distinction. The statement of claim was replaced with a redacted version, but the 26 February 2025 affidavit was simply removed from the file and sealed.

For businesses, this is a practical reminder that not all court documents are treated identically. Whether a document has merely been filed, or has actually been read and used as evidence, can affect the court's approach to later confidentiality applications. That does not mean filed material is harmless. It means your legal team should know exactly what has been filed, what has been read, and what each annexure contains.

Bromwich J made the final orders in the narrowed form sought after the parties refined the redactions. In NSD 134 of 2025, all versions of the two Jack Pembroke-Birss affidavits affirmed on 4 February 2025 and 12 February 2025 were to be removed from the court file. The New South Wales District Registrar was to place them in a marked envelope, seal the envelope and store it so it would not be opened or made available for public inspection except by leave of the court. Those affidavits were then to be replaced by redacted versions in the manner specified in the orders.

In NSD 189 of 2025, the statement of claim filed on 11 February 2025 and the affidavit of Jack Pembroke-Birss affirmed on 26 February 2025 were to be removed from the court file and sealed in the same way. The statement of claim was to be replaced by a redacted version. The 26 February affidavit was not replaced.

The court also granted CABC leave to discontinue the general protections proceeding with no order as to costs and to file a notice of discontinuance within seven days. There was no order as to the costs of the interlocutory application dated 24 October 2025 in either proceeding.

The judge said he was satisfied that the appropriate balance had been struck and that the infringement on open justice was sufficiently confined relative to securing settlement in the proper advancement of the administration of justice. That is the key reason the orders were made.

This case is best read as a document-handling and litigation-process decision. It does not say that businesses can routinely hide embarrassing or sensitive material once a dispute settles. It says the court may approve a carefully limited regime where the balance between open justice and the proper administration of justice supports that outcome.

There are several practical points. First, settlement terms that depend on confidentiality orders are conditional, not self-executing. The court must still be persuaded. Second, narrow redactions supported by specific reasons are more likely to succeed than broad claims that everything is confidential. Third, the status of each document matters. A pleading or affidavit read in court may need a public redacted replacement, while a filed but unread document may be treated differently.

For employers and other businesses in staff disputes, this is especially relevant where affidavits may include legal advice, internal complaints, investigation material, names of individuals, or annexed email chains. Over-inclusion at the filing stage can create later risk. A disciplined approach to pleadings, affidavits and annexures can reduce the need for urgent suppression or removal applications.

Businesses should also note the role of media access in this story. The confidentiality issue became sharper when a media organisation sought access to material used in the injunction proceeding. If your dispute could attract public attention, assume that filed material may be scrutinised and prepare accordingly.

The judgment was delivered on 19 December 2025 by Bromwich J in the Federal Court of Australia. The hearing took place on 4 December 2025. The orders consolidated the hearing of the applications for relief in the two proceedings, NSD 134 of 2025 and NSD 189 of 2025.

The reasons also note that earlier costs orders made in AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd v CABC (No 2) [2025] FCA 698 were the subject of an outstanding appeal. This decision itself dealt with the removal, storage and replacement of documents, and with leave to discontinue the general protections proceeding.