Carol Anne Kidu v Hollie Fifer

Carol Anne Kidu sought a permanent injunction to prevent Hollie Fifer and others from exhibiting in public, as part of a documentary, film footage taken of her with her knowledge and agreement. The dispute arose when Fifer, a student at the time, filmed Kidu for a student assignment documentary, but later decided to release the documentary publicly on a different topic. Kidu argued that there was an enforceable contract and implied term that the footage would only be used for the student assignment, and that Fifer's actions amounted to unconscionable conduct.

The court examined whether there was a legally binding contract and whether an implied term restricted the use of the footage to a student assignment documentary. It was found that the arrangement before the interview did not constitute a legally enforceable agreement. Regarding the implied term, the court held that Fifer had made Kidu aware of her intentions to create a documentary for public release and that the change in focus was often encouraged by, or a result of, Kidu's actions. Thus, Kidu was not vulnerable or at a disadvantage, and Fifer did not act unconscionably.

The court rejected Kidu's claims of unconscionable conduct and contract enforcement, finding that Fifer had adequately informed Kidu of her intentions and that Kidu was not disadvantaged in the situation. The court did not grant the injunction sought by Kidu. As a result, Fifer and the other defendants were permitted to exhibit the documentary publicly.