Quick hit

On 10 June 2025, a new law came into effect that enables an individual to take legal action for a serious invasion of their privacy in Australia.

Previously, individuals seeking redress for breaches of their privacy had limited options – they generally may have sued for defamation or misuse of confidential information, or asked a regulatory body to take action.

In the first published decision to consider the new statutory tort, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the publication of private wedding photographs.

What is the new cause of action for serious invasion of privacy?

The new legal right (part of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)) enables individuals to bring a claim for a serious invasion of their privacy.

The requirements of the cause of action are:

  • there has been an invasion of privacy through either an “intrusion on seclusion” (such as watching, listening or recording private activities) or the misuse of information that relates to the plaintiff (such as collecting, using and disclosing information);
  • the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all the circumstances;
  • the invasion of privacy was intentional or reckless;
  • the invasion of privacy was serious; and
  • the public interest in the plaintiff’s privacy outweighs any countervailing public interest (such as freedom of expression).

Defences and exemptions include:

  • the person consented;
  • a journalism exemption; and
  • certain defences under defamation law (absolute privilege, publication of public documents or fair report of proceedings of public concern).

The remedies for a serious invasion of privacy include an injunction, damages and exemplary damages, and an apology.

A recent case – court orders the removal of private information

In Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396, Judge Gibson considered the new cause of action.

The dispute appears to have arisen in the context of a development application made by Kurraba Group to which the defendant, Mr Williams, objected. Mr Williams made a series of allegations against Kurraba Group and its CEO (the second plaintiff), including allegations published on his ‘Kurraba Group Exposed’ website that the Court described as being of the ‘gravest kind’.

Mr Williams also demanded payment from the plaintiffs in exchange for withdrawing his allegations. On the available evidence, the Court found Mr Williams’ conduct was extortion – there was no evidence of any other legitimate reason for the conduct.

Kurraba Group and its CEO brought claims against Mr Williams for serious invasions of privacy, defamation and intimidation.

Judge Gibson gave limited details about the CEO’s claim for serious invasion of privacy. Her Honour deliberately said as little as possible about the subject matter of that claim, in order not to cause the CEO any further damage or distress, noting the ‘Streisand effect’ (a term coined after Barbara Streisand’s attempt to stop the publication of a photograph of her home, which drew much more public attention to the photograph than would have happened if she hadn’t taken legal action.)

From the limited information provided in the decision, Mr Williams’ allegations involved the misuse of the private wedding photographs to portray what was depicted as ‘delinquency and drunkenness as opposed to the sanctity of marriage and the ceremonial proceedings attendant thereupon.’ Judge Gibson noted that the CEO and his wife were not public figures and that the photographs were never intended to be made public.

Judge Gibson ordered Mr Williams to remove the content in question and stop further publication until the case is decided.

What happens next?

Judge Gibson’s decision was not a final decision on the merits of the case (that question will be determined at a later date unless the parties settle), so for now there is no detailed judicial consideration of the new privacy tort.

Issues that are likely to be tested in this type of case include whether the plaintiff had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in all of the circumstances. The Privacy Act sets out a number of factors that the Court can consider in determining this question, which include:

  • how and why the plaintiff’s privacy was invaded;
  • who the plaintiff is (including factors such as their age, occupation, or cultural background, and whether they invited publicity);
  • the nature of the information that has been misused, including whether it relates to intimate or family matters, health or medical matters or financial matters; and
  • how the plaintiff treated the information and whether or not the information was already in the public domain.

The Explanatory Memorandum introducing the new law stated that the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test is intended to be flexible, to reflect the fact that community expectations of privacy can change over time.

Need help?

If you need advice from a specialist privacy or defamation lawyer, please contact Adam Simpson, Ian McDonald or Anna Spies.