Lessons from a failed Supreme Court bid for pseudonym order by a former AFL player

The Supreme Court of Victoria recently refused an application by a former player at the Essendon Football Club ("Club") to be identified by a pseudonym (rather than by his real name) in proceedings he intended to commence. In doing so, the Court:

• reaffirmed the principles which govern the granting of what are commonly referred to as 'pseudonym orders'; and
• emphasised the distinction between pseudonym orders and suppression orders.

Any individual intending to seek identity protection from the Courts in proceedings should be alert to the circumstances in which a Court may make a pseudonym order.

What is a pseudonym order?

In Hal Hunter v Australian Football League & Anor [2015] VSC 112, the player sought orders pursuant to the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) that he be permitted to issue proceedings using a pseudonym; that his true identity be kept confidential during the proceedings; and that he be referred to in court documents (which are generally publically