Milisits v The State of South Australia

Vili Milisits commenced a defamation action against the State of South Australia, alleging that statements made by the Director of Public Health, Kevin Bucket, during press conferences and a radio broadcast conveyed imputations that his bakery products were contaminated with salmonella. The State sought to rely on a defence of justification, asserting it possessed epidemiological evidence, including survey interviews with salmonella sufferers, to support this claim. While the State disclosed redacted versions of these interview results, Mr Milisits sought an order for the un-redacted documents. A Master ordered production, rejecting claims of irrelevance and public interest immunity. The State appealed this decision to a Judge, who agreed the redacted material was relevant but upheld the State's claim of public interest immunity, allowing the appeal.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was required to determine whether the redacted information from the survey interviews was subject to public interest immunity, thereby justifying its non-disclosure to Mr Milisits. The Court also had to consider the relevance of this material to the defamation proceedings and the appropriate balancing of competing public interests.

The Court, comprising Gray, Peek, and Nicholson JJ, allowed the appeal, setting aside the Judge's order and reinstating the Master's order for production. The reasoning focused on the balancing exercise required when considering claims of public interest immunity. While acknowledging the potential sensitivity of the information, the Court found that the interests favouring disclosure in this instance outweighed the public interest in non-disclosure. The Court noted that the principles of public interest immunity, as discussed in relevant case law, were applied to the specific facts, and that the considerations in this case were less complex than those in certain blood donation cases. The Court ultimately ordered the production of the un-redacted documents, with further directions to be heard regarding the terms of the consequential orders and costs.