Attorney-General (United Kingdom) v Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd

The Attorney-General of the United Kingdom sought to restrain the publication of confidential information acquired by a former employee of the United Kingdom security service, arguing that such publication would breach undertakings of confidentiality and that the information was protected by the public policy of the United Kingdom. Heinemann Publishers Australia Pty Ltd intended to publish a book containing this information. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the Australian courts should enforce the public laws of a foreign state, specifically the United Kingdom's interest in protecting its national security information.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the publication of material that, while not subject to copyright or breach of contract in Australia, was considered confidential and vital to the national security of the United Kingdom. The court had to consider the extent to which Australian courts should intervene to uphold the public policy and laws of a foreign sovereign state, particularly when those laws related to national security and the enforcement of confidentiality obligations arising from employment within a foreign intelligence agency.

The High Court, by majority, dismissed the appeal. The majority reasoned that Australian courts would not grant an injunction to restrain the publication of information on the basis that it would be contrary to the public policy of a foreign country. While acknowledging the importance of international comity, the court held that the enforcement of foreign public law, particularly in matters of national security, was not a function of Australian courts. The court distinguished between the enforcement of private rights (such as contractual obligations) and the enforcement of public laws or policies of a foreign state. The court found that the Attorney-General was seeking to enforce the public law of the United Kingdom, which Australian courts would not do. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.