Ultrasonic Slimming Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

The case before the court involved a dispute between Ultrasonic Slimming Pty Ltd and Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd. The plaintiffs sought substituted service of proceedings against the third defendant, who was unable to be located. The third defendant was identified as the informant for an article published by the first and second defendants. The plaintiffs argued that they had made a promise to the third defendant not to reveal their identity. The court was required to decide whether the privilege claimed by the journalists extended to the informant and whether an order for substituted service would result in the disclosure of the third defendant's identity.

The court considered the nature of journalists' privilege and whether it applied to an informant. The court found that journalists' privilege did not extend to the informant in this case, as the privilege was intended to protect the identity of sources who provided information to journalists, not those who were already known to the public. The court also considered whether an order for substituted service would result in the disclosure of the third defendant's identity. The court found that it would not, as the order would not require the plaintiffs to disclose the identity of the third defendant to anyone, including the court.

Based on the court's reasoning, it was determined that an order for substituted service should be made. The court found that the plaintiffs had made a genuine promise to the third defendant not to reveal their identity, and that there was no other way to serve the proceedings on the third defendant. The court also found that the public interest in the enforcement of legal rights outweighed the potential harm to the third defendant's privacy. Therefore, the court made an order for substituted service of the proceedings on the third defendant.

The final orders of the court included an order for substituted service of the proceedings on the third defendant, as well as an order that the plaintiffs were not required to disclose the identity of the third defendant to anyone, including the court. The court also made an order that the proceedings against the first and second defendants would continue in the absence of the third defendant.