Her Majesty's Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales v John Fairfax and Sons Limited

Her Majesty's Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales (the Attorney-General) sought an injunction against John Fairfax and Sons Limited (Fairfax) to restrain the publication of certain information. The dispute concerned the potential publication of information relating to the proposed sale of the State Rail Authority's (SRA) surplus land, which the Attorney-General argued would be contrary to the public interest and potentially prejudicial to the SRA's interests. The matter came before the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Attorney-General was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to prevent Fairfax from publishing the information. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the grant of such injunctions, particularly in circumstances where the Attorney-General sought to protect the public interest and the interests of a statutory authority against the freedom of the press. The Court had to balance the public interest in the free dissemination of information against the potential harm that publication might cause.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles established in *Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd* [1976] QB 752, which outline the circumstances in which the Crown can seek to restrain publication in the public interest. The Court considered whether the Attorney-General had established a sufficient likelihood of success at trial, demonstrating that the proposed publication would be in breach of confidence or otherwise unlawful. The Court also had to assess the balance of convenience, weighing the potential damage to the public interest and the SRA if publication proceeded against the damage to Fairfax if publication were restrained. The Court ultimately found that the Attorney-General had not discharged the onus of establishing a sufficiently strong case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney-General's appeal and refused to grant the interlocutory injunction.