Privacy law in action: District Court applies new statutory tort for the first time

The District Court of New South Wales has delivered the first published judgment applying Australia’s new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy, marking a pivotal development in the nation’s privacy law landscape.

In Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396, handed down on 7 October 2025, Judge Judith Gibson granted urgent interlocutory injunctive relief, including in respect of an alleged serious invasion of privacy under the new cause of action introduced in Schedule 2 to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

The case involved an alleged "campaign of extortion" and the publishing of wedding photos online.

The judgment provides crucial early guidance on how Australian courts will approach the new statutory privacy tort, including what constitutes a “serious” invasion of privacy, how misuse of private photographs may attract liability, and the jurisdictional basis for such claims in the District Court.

Background

The plaintiffs, an Australian proprietary company and its chief executive officer, sought interlocutory relief against the defendant, who they alleged had led a "campaign of extortion" against them, including publishing negative allegations about the plaintiffs on a dedicated website, in a negative Google review and at a public meeting, while secretly demanding payment to cease the conduct.

Importantly to the claim for serious invasion of privacy, part of that campaign included the posting of the second plaintiff's wedding photos.  Judge Gibson found the photos were private because the second plaintiff and his wife were not public figures and had no intention of publishing their wedding photos to the media or any other mass publication.  Her Honour held the photos were misused by the defendant in an attempt to portray "moral delinquency and drunkenness".  The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs in circumstances where the defendant's conduct amounted to extortion.

Judge Gibson found there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the tort of privacy (as well as the torts of intimidation and defamation) and ordered injunctions restraining the defendant from publishing any document about the plaintiffs and requiring the defendant to take down any website, article, advertisement or document about the plaintiffs.  Judge Gibson noted her judgment would say "as little about the subject matter (concerning the invasion of privacy claim) as possible", in recognition of the fact that "merely repeating the false allegations in a judgment can increase the damage".

Lessons

The key lessons arising from the judgment are:

1. Firstly, a misuse of private photographs which were never intended to be made public may amount to a serious invasion of privacy.    
2. Secondly, in interpreting the statutory tort, Australian courts are likely to have regard to the reasoning of courts in other common law jurisdictions which have recognised a right to privacy, including the United Kingdom.  In this case, her Honour had regard to the decision in Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWHC 786.
3. Thirdly, the District Court of NSW has the necessary jurisdiction under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to grant relief in relation to the tort for serious invasions of privacy.  Judge Gibson observed that: "This is clearly the case for interlocutory relief, which is all that concerns this application, and may well also apply to final relief, although the precise parameters of power will have to await determination for another day."
4. Lastly, courts continue to approach applications for interlocutory and interim injunctions with great caution, particularly in defamation matters, but will exercise their discretion to grant such relief in the right circumstances, including where the defendant's conduct has a "flavour of vendetta" against the plaintiff: see Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181, [150] (Solomon J).

What this means

While Judge Gibson found that the privacy tort applied to the use of private wedding photos in this case, it is important to remember that the law provides for an exemption for journalists where an invasion of privacy involves the collection, preparation for publication, or publication of journalistic material by a journalist (and other related parties).  The limits of the exemption are yet to be tested in court.

If you would like any assistance with issues relating to privacy, whether corporate or litigious, please contact our Media, Broadcasting, and Entertainment team.

This article was written by media and privacy expert lawyers Partner Marlia Saunders and Lawyer Harry Brown.