FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Contempt) [2025] FCA 812
File number: NSD 189 of 2024 Judgment of: RANGIAH J Date of judgment: 18 July 2025 Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – interlocutory application seeking that the Principal Registrar be directed to pursue an application for contempt – where a suppression and non-publication order was made prohibiting disclosure of names and contact details of certain persons – where intervening parties allege respondents breached the order by failing to remove online articles disclosing identities of persons covered by the order – where there is a reasonably arguable case of contempt – where there is a reasonably arguable defence – discretionary factors considered – application dismissed. Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 4
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 37AF(1), 37AL, 50 and 772(1)(f)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 2.32(4), 42.11, 42.16 and Schedule 1
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v One Tech Media Limited (No 3) [2018] FCA 1071
Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd v ACN 149 801 141 Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 743
Boase v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd t/as McGees Property (No 4) [2013] FCA 195
CT Sheet Metal Works Pty Ltd v Hutchinson (2012) 201 FCR 275
Hogan v Hinch (2011) 243 CLR 506
Lane v Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [1981] 148 CLR 245
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2025] FCA 62
Mensink v Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia [2022] FCAFC 102
R v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd (Ruling No 2) [2020] VSC 800
Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman Networks Ltd (2006) 150 FCR 110
Division: Fair Work Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 60 Date of last submission: 14 July 2025 (Fairfax Parties) Date of interlocutory hearings: 25 June 2025
14 July 2025Counsel for the Applicant/Confidential Intervening Party: Ms S Chrysanthou SC with Mr N Olson Solicitor for the Applicant/Confidential Intervening Party: Giles George Counsel for the Respondent/Fairfax Parties: Mr T Blackburn SC with Ms L Barnett and Mr Forbes Solicitor for the Respondent/Fairfax Parties: MinterEllison ORDERS
NSD 189 of 2024 BETWEEN: ANTOINETTE LATTOUF
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Intervening Parties’ interlocutory application filed on 26 February 2025 seeking an order under r 42.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) directing the Principal Registrar to make an application for punishment of the respondents to the interlocutory application for contempt of the Court be dismissed.
2.The Intervening Parties pay half of the costs of the respondents to the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Contempt) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 812
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature of the contempt proceedings and the legal principles applicable to such cases. It was necessary to assess whether the respondents had acted in a manner that could be considered contemptuous of the court's authority. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal authorities. It found that there was a reasonably arguable case of contempt against the respondents, as they had failed to remove the online articles disclosing the identities of the individuals covered by the suppression order. However, the court also found that there was a reasonably arguable defence, as the respondents had taken steps to remove the articles once they became aware of the suppression order. The court balanced the discretionary factors, such as the seriousness of the alleged contempt and the public interest in freedom of speech, and determined that it was not in the interests of justice to pursue the application for contempt at that stage.
The court dismissed the intervening parties' interlocutory application, which sought an order under rule 42.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) directing the Principal Registrar to make an application for punishment of the respondents for contempt of the Court. The court ordered that the intervening parties pay half of the costs of the respondents to the interlocutory application as between party and party. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Intervening Parties’ interlocutory application filed on 26 February 2025 seeking an order under r 42.16 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) directing the Principal Registrar to make an application for punishment of the respondents to the interlocutory application for contempt of the Court be dismissed.
2. The Intervening Parties pay half of the costs of the respondents to the interlocutory application as between party and party.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.