Nine Network Australia v Seven Network (Operations)

The dispute between Nine Network Australia and Seven Network (Operations) reached the court in an application by a non-party seeking to be heard regarding the extension of ex parte orders. The non-party sought to challenge an injunction that restrained the publication of the contents of an affidavit, which had been served for the purposes of a court application but was not read. The application raised legal issues concerning the role of media proprietors in such proceedings and the distinction between the media's role in seeking to be heard on an application of this nature and their role in relation to a non-publication order concerning events in open court. The court had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the media proprietors' interest in the matter.

The court examined the nature of the media's interest in the proceedings and the potential impact of publication on the proceedings. The court held that the media proprietors had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a significant interest in the application. The court noted that the media's role in seeking to be heard on an application of this nature was different from their role in relation to a non-publication order concerning events in open court. The court held that the media proprietors had not demonstrated a sufficient interest to warrant being heard on the application. The court found that the ex parte orders should be extended, and the application by the media proprietors was dismissed.

The court's decision emphasised the need for evidence to establish a significant interest in such proceedings. The court held that the media proprietors had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate their interest in the application. The court found that the extension of the ex parte orders was appropriate, and the application by the media proprietors was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the ex parte orders were extended, and the application by the media proprietors was dismissed with costs.