Australia’s privacy landscape shifted dramatically with the introduction of the statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), which took effect on 10 June 2025. Only months later, the District Court of New South Wales (Court) applied this new cause of action for the first time in Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396.
Background to the Dispute
The plaintiffs, Kurraba Group Pty Ltd (Kurraba Group) and Nicholas Smith, were involved in a property redevelopment project. Michael Williams, through his entity Glexia Pty Ltd, leased a portion of the development site. After refusing Michael Williams’ alleged demand for $50,000 to withdraw his planning objections, Nicholas Smith found himself the subject of an aggressive online campaign. Williams launched a website filled with accusatory content about Smith and the development project. Crucially, he published private wedding photographs of Smith — images shared only with guests at a personal ceremony and never intended for public dissemination. In response, Smith and Kurraba Group sought urgent relief, relying on the newly available statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy alongside claims of defamation and intimidation.
The Court’s Findings
Judge Gibson held that the plaintiffs had established the necessary threshold for interim injunctive relief under the Privacy Act. Key considerations included:
1. Serious question to be tried
The Court was satisfied that the misuse of Smith’s wedding photographs raised a substantial issue concerning the statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy.
2. Intentional or reckless conduct
Williams’ publication of the photographs, particularly in a context designed to cast Smith in a negative and hostile light, was found to be deliberate or at least reckless.
3. Reasonable expectation of privacy
Although the images were taken at a wedding, their private nature remained intact. Being shared only among invited guests reinforced Smith’s ongoing expectation of privacy.
4. Public interest balancing test
Judge Gibson emphasised that the public interest in safeguarding personal privacy significantly outweighed any countervailing interest Williams might assert, including alleged concerns about the development.
Scope of the Injunction Granted
The Court issued unusually broad interim orders — reflecting both the severity of the invasion and the court’s willingness to use its new statutory powers robustly. Orders included:
- restraining Williams from publishing or disseminating any content referring to Nicholas Smith;
- compelling the removal of all existing online material within 48 hours; and
- prohibiting Williams from encouraging or directing any other person to engage in similar conduct.
This comprehensive approach signalled a clear judicial appetite to prevent ongoing and future harm in privacy matters.
Why this Case Matters
Until recently, privacy protections were largely patchworked across equitable doctrines, surveillance laws, and data protection statutes. The new statutory tort fills a longstanding gap — and this case demonstrates its potency.
Key implications include:
1. Privacy claims extend beyond media organisations
This this case arose from a highly personal conflict between private individuals. The judgment makes explicit that serious invasions of privacy may occur in everyday interpersonal, commercial, or online contexts — not merely through journalism or mass media.
2. Private images receive strong judicial protection
The Court’s recognition that private photographs retain a strong expectation of privacy even when shared among guests reinforces protection over intimate digital material.
3. Courts are willing to impose swift and expansive relief
The breadth of the injunction indicates that courts will not hesitate to act decisively when serious invasions of privacy are established, especially given the speed and reach of online dissemination.
Conclusion
This judgement confirms that Australians now have enforceable, practical statutory rights to protect private images and personal information from misuse, and that the courts are prepared to intervene firmly to prevent ongoing harm. This case is likely to shape future privacy litigation, guiding courts, individuals, and businesses as they navigate the boundaries between freedom of expression and the new statutory tort for serious invasions of personal privacy.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Adrika Dhawan, paralegal.
