Attorney-General (Cth) v Schmidt (No 2)

The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia brought proceedings against Mr. Schmidt, seeking to restrain him from continuing to publish certain material. The dispute concerned the publication of information that the Attorney-General alleged was confidential and that its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The matter came before Kitto J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Attorney-General was entitled to an injunction to prevent the publication of the information. This required the Court to consider the nature of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of government information and the extent to which such an interest could override the public interest in freedom of expression and the right to publish. The Court also had to determine the principles governing the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions in cases involving alleged breaches of confidence and the public interest.

Kitto J applied the principles established in cases concerning the protection of confidential government information. His Honour recognised that while there is a public interest in the proper functioning of government and the confidentiality of its operations, this interest is not absolute. It must be weighed against the public interest in open government and the free flow of information. The Court found that the Attorney-General had not established a sufficient case for the grant of an injunction, as the information in question did not, in the circumstances, warrant the extraordinary intervention of equity to restrain its publication. The Attorney-General's application was therefore dismissed.