Qantas Airways Limited v Persons Unknown - [2025] NSWSC 776

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Qantas Airways Limited v Persons Unknown [2025] NSWSC 776
Hearing dates: 16 July 2025
Date of orders: 16 July 2025
Decision date: 16 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Interlocutory orders made

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Suppression and non-publication
COURTS AND JUDGES — Bias — Applicable principles

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act, 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown (2024) 113 NSWLR 418; [2024] NSWSC 71

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties:
Qantas Airways Limited (Plaintiff)
Persons Unknown (Defendants)
Representation:
Counsel: Name suppressed (Plaintiff)
Solicitors: Name suppressed (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2025/272678
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Introduction

By proceedings commenced today in the Duty List, the plaintiff, Qantas Airways Limited, moves the Court to commence proceedings including for urgent interlocutory relief against persons unknown (the defendants). In the age of hackers and challenges to cybersecurity, the Court has become well familiar with this type of matter. There is no doubt that since the decision of Slattery J in HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Persons Unknown (2024) 113 NSWLR 418; [2024] NSWSC 71 proceedings can be brought in this form.
There has already been considerable media attention directed to the fact that Qantas has been the subject of a cybersecurity incident. The present proceedings include an application for interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from, putting it generally, publishing, transmitting, disclosing or using any of the material which has been taken from Qantas’ servers without Qantas’ consent, and requesting the defendants to remove immediately all such material from any accessible location on the internet.
These short reasons deal with two particular aspects of today’s application: the issue of my potential recusal and the suppression of the existence of these proceedings for not more than about 19 hours.

Recusal

I disclosed to Qantas’ counsel that I am a person affected by this cybersecurity breach. I have been a member of the Qantas Club and a Qantas Frequent Flyer for more years than I care to remember. I have received a generic email from Qantas informing me that my data is caught up in what occurred.
Having disclosed that to counsel, I indicated my view that I did not regard what I had disclosed as a sufficient basis to recuse myself from dealing with the present application or the further conduct of these proceedings having regard to the principles in Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337.
Counsel indicated that he had no application to make in the light of my disclosure. With commendable efficiency, his written submissions had anticipated this issue and for the reasons he sets out in those submissions, I do not regard this as a case where my somewhat limited connection with what has occurred would cause a fair-minded lay observer to think that I could not approach the matter before me…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Qantas Airways Limited v Persons Unknown 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 776
Decision Date: 16 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Qantas Airways Limited brought an action against persons unknown to seek an injunction and damages in relation to the alleged publication of confidential information on the internet. The Federal Court of Australia heard the application. The court was required to decide whether the application for suppression and non-publication orders should be granted. The court considered the principles of natural justice and bias in determining whether the orders should be made.

The court found that the application was urgent, as the publication of confidential information could cause significant damage to the applicant's reputation and business interests. The court also found that the applicant had a strong prima facie case for an injunction and damages. The court held that the orders for suppression and non-publication were necessary to prevent the further publication of the confidential information and to protect the applicant's rights. The court noted that the orders were not intended to restrict freedom of speech or the media, but rather to prevent the unlawful publication of confidential information. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and bias in determining whether the orders should be made.

The court granted the application for suppression and non-publication orders. The court noted that the orders were temporary and would be reviewed in due course. The court also ordered that the applicant provide security for costs in relation to the application. The court held that the orders were necessary to protect the applicant's rights and prevent the further publication of confidential information. The court emphasised that the orders were not intended to restrict freedom of speech or the media, but rather to prevent the unlawful publication of confidential information.

The court made orders for suppression and non-publication, and for security for costs. The orders were temporary and would be reviewed in due course. The court held that the orders were necessary to protect the applicant's rights and prevent the further publication of confidential information. The court emphasised that the orders were not intended to restrict freedom of speech or the media, but rather to prevent the unlawful publication of confidential information. The court noted that the principles of natural justice and bias were relevant to the making of the orders, but did not prevent the court from making the orders in this case.

Orders