Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania concerning an application for an interlocutory injunction. The respondent, Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd, sought to restrain the appellant, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), from broadcasting footage of its possum processing operations. The footage had been obtained by unknown individuals who unlawfully entered the respondent's premises and installed hidden cameras, and was subsequently provided to the ABC. The respondent alleged that broadcasting the film would cause significant financial harm and distress to viewers.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent had a legal or equitable right that could be protected by an interlocutory injunction, and whether the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution was relevant to the grant of such an injunction. Specifically, the Court had to consider if Australian law recognised a tort of invasion of privacy, whether such a right extended to corporations, and if the circumstances of the film's acquisition and the nature of the information contained within it justified equitable intervention to prevent its broadcast. The Court also examined the scope of the Supreme Court of Tasmania's power to grant interlocutory injunctions under s 11(12) of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas), particularly the meaning of "just and convenient" in that context.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The majority reasoned that the respondent had not established a serious question to be tried regarding a breach of confidence, as the information depicted in the film, relating to lawful animal slaughtering operations, was not confidential in nature. The Court reiterated that an injunction is a remedy that protects a legal or equitable right, and in the absence of such a right, or a clear legal wrong, an injunction should not be granted. The Court found that the mere fact that the information was tortiously obtained was insufficient to create an equitable right to restrain its publication, especially when the information itself was not confidential and the broadcaster had not contravened any statute. The implied freedom of political communication was also considered, with the Court indicating that the power to grant an injunction must be exercised in accordance with the rule of law and not based on subjective notions of justice.