Kurraba Group Pty Ltd v Williams - [2025] NSWDC 396

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396
Hearing dates: 2 October 2025
Date of orders: 2 and 7 October 2025
Decision date: 07 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph [30]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for injunction orders for intimidation– defamation – breach of privacy – ex parte proceeding – whether there is a serious question to be tried – balance of convenience – evidence of a “campaign of extortion” by the defendant to obtain financial advantage in exchange for ceasing to publish – interim injunction granted

Legislation Cited:
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 10A(5)
District Court Act 1973 (NSW) s 46
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39(2) and 39B(1A)(c)
Part 2 of Schedule 2 of Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and clauses 7 and 23
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 10.20

Cases Cited:
Breunis v Penthouse Publications Ltd (NSWSC, 15619 of 1992, 20 August 1993, Levine J, unreported)
Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 217
Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd; Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 192
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWHC 786
Flo Rida v Mothership Music Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 268
Geyer v Ghosn (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 782
QBH Commercial Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 441
Richards (a pseudonym) v Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 5
Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; 263 CLR 149
Whittington v Newman [2024] NSWCA 27
Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Plainitff:
1st Plaintiff: Kurraba Group Pty Ltd
2nd Plaintiff: Nicholas Mark Smith
Defendant: Mr Michael Brian Wiliams
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiffs: Mr T Smartt
Defendant: Ex Parte
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Defendant: Ex Parte

File Number(s): 2025/00378917
Publication restriction: s 8(1)(a) and/or (e) of the Court Suppression and Nonpublication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

Judgment

The application before the court

The plaintiffs, an Australian proprietary company and its chief executive officer, seek a suite of interlocutory orders designed to bring what they call a “campaign of extortion” by the defendant to an end. That campaign included:

Maintaining a publicity campaign against both plaintiffs while secretly approaching the plaintiffs for the purpose of demanding $50,000 in exchange for desisting in this conduct.

Publishing a one-star google review of the first plaintiff (and, by inference, the second plaintiff) in furtherance of this proposal.

Making allegations about the plaintiffs in a public meeting in furtherance of this proposal.

Creating a public website (“Kurraba Group Exposed”) on which a series of publications were made for the same purpose.

The defendant is the sole director and secretary of Glexia Pty Ltd, a company that briefly leased premises the subject of a development application brought by the first plaintiff. He is asserted to have brought the campaign of extortion for the purpose of obtaining financial benefit sought in exchange for ceasing to publish.
The plaintiffs commenced…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kurraba Group Pty Ltd v Williams

Details

AGLC: Kurraba Group Pty Ltd v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396
Case: [2025] NSWDC 396
Decision Date: 07 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Kurraba Group Pty Ltd, a company, and Mr. Williams, an individual, where the company sought an injunction to prevent Mr. Williams from engaging in what was alleged to be a campaign of extortion, defamation, and breach of privacy. The proceedings were ex parte, meaning they were initiated without the presence of the respondent. The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented by the applicant established a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged campaign of extortion and whether the balance of convenience weighed in favour of granting the interim injunction. The court had to consider the applicant's evidence of threats, defamatory statements, and breaches of privacy, along with the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court also had to assess the likelihood of success of the applicant's case on the merits and the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction was not granted.

In granting the injunction, the court found that the evidence presented by Kurraba Group Pty Ltd was sufficient to establish a serious question to be tried. The court accepted that the applicant had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the allegations of extortion, defamation, and breach of privacy. The court further found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim injunction, as the applicant risked significant harm if the injunction was not granted. The court concluded that the applicant had met the necessary threshold for an ex parte injunction and that the interim injunction should be granted to protect the applicant's rights and interests pending the final determination of the case.

The court ordered that an interim injunction be granted to the applicant, restraining the respondent from engaging in the alleged campaign of extortion, defamation, and breach of privacy. The injunction was to remain in effect until the final determination of the case or until further order of the court. The court also directed that the matter proceed on an expedited basis, recognising the urgency of the applicant's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [30]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396
Hearing dates:	2 October 2025
Date of orders:	2 and 7 October 2025
Decision date:	07 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph [30]
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for injunction orders for intimidation– defamation – breach of privacy – ex parte proceeding – whether there is a serious question to be tried – balance of convenience – evidence of a “campaign of extortion” by the defendant to obtain financial advantage in exchange for ceasing to publish – interim injunction granted
Legislation Cited:	Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 10A(5) District Court Act 1973 (NSW) s 46 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39(2) and 39B(1A)(c) Part 2 of Schedule 2 of Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and clauses 7 and 23 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 10.20
Cases Cited:	Breunis v Penthouse Publications Ltd (NSWSC, 15619 of 1992, 20 August 1993, Levine J, unreported) Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 217 Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd; Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 192 Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWHC 786 Flo Rida v Mothership Music Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 268 Geyer v Ghosn (No 2) [2020] NSWDC 782 QBH Commercial Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 441 Richards (a pseudonym) v Jones (a pseudonym) [2025] NSWSC 5 Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; 263 CLR 149 Whittington v Newman [2024] NSWCA 27 Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Plainitff: 1st Plaintiff: Kurraba Group Pty Ltd 2nd Plaintiff: Nicholas Mark Smith Defendant: Mr Michael Brian Wiliams
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiffs: Mr T Smartt Defendant: Ex Parte Solicitors: Plaintiffs: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Defendant: Ex Parte
File Number(s):	2025/00378917
Publication restriction:	s 8(1)(a) and/or (e) of the Court Suppression and Nonpublication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)