FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wertheim v Haddad (No 2) [2025] FCA 820
File number: NSD 1503 of 2024 Judgment of: STEWART J Date of judgment: 17 July 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where respondents were found to have contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – where applicants sought and the Court was satisfied it had the power to order publication of corrective notices pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) – where parties were invited to make further submissions on the appropriate form and manner in which those notices would be posted on the applicants’ social media – whether those notices should be “pinned” and “featured” on certain social media Legislation: Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), Pt IIA Cases cited: Eatock v Bolt (No 2) [2011] FCA 1180; 284 ALR 114 Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 7 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submission: 15 July 2025 Counsel for the Applicants: P S Braham SC, H Ryan and J Chen Solicitor for the Applicants: Deutsch Miller Solicitor for the Respondents: I Jabbour of Macquarie Law Group ORDERS
NSD 1503 of 2024 BETWEEN: PETER WERTHEIM AM
First Applicant
ROBERT GOOT AO SC
Second Applicant
AND: WILLIAM HADDAD
First Respondent
AL MADINAH DAWAH CENTRE INC
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STEWART J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the second respondent, at its own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish or arrange to be published, for a period of 30 days:
(a)on its Facebook page ( a post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide 3.png” (in that order), contained in the folder “Instagram & Facebook Post” on Exhibit PK-3 to the affidavit of Poppy Kambas affirmed on 7 July 2025 (Ex PK-3), accompanied by a caption consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders, and cause this post to be designated a “featured” post;
(b)
a post on its Rumble page
( which includes:
(i)the video file “Rumble Post.mp4”, contained in the folder “Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;
(ii)the thumbnail image “Rumble Thumbnail.jpg” contained in the folder ”Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;
(iii)the title “CORRECTIVE ORDER: NOTICE BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA”; and
(iv)a “description” consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders,
and cause this video to be designated a “featured” video.
2.Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the first respondent, at his own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish:
(a)on his Instagram page ( a period of 30 days, a grid post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide…
Continue reading Wertheim v Haddad (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wertheim v Haddad (No 2) [2025] FCA 820
- Case
- [2025] FCA 820
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court determined that it indeed possessed the authority to mandate the publication of corrective notices on the respondents' social media platforms. The applicants argued that the notices should be prominently featured on the respondents' social media, and the Court agreed, providing detailed instructions on how the notices should be posted, including the specific platforms, the duration of the posting, and the particular format, such as being "pinned" or "featured." The Court also outlined the precise content and layout of the notices to be posted, ensuring clarity and compliance with the legislative requirements.
In its judgment, the Court granted the applicants' request for specific orders regarding the publication of corrective notices. The second respondent, Al Madina Dawah Centre, was directed to publish the notices on its Facebook and Rumble pages, with particular attention to making the posts "featured." Similarly, the first respondent, William Haddad, was instructed to publish the notices on his Instagram and Soundcloud accounts, ensuring they were "pinned" or "Spotlighted" as appropriate. The Court's orders included detailed specifications for the content, format, and duration of the posts to ensure compliance with the legal requirements.
This ruling underscores the Court's commitment to enforcing anti-discrimination laws and ensuring that corrective notices are effectively disseminated to prevent future unlawful behavior. The detailed nature of the orders reflects the Court's intent to ensure the notices are prominently displayed on the respondents' social media platforms, thereby maximizing their visibility and impact.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the second respondent, at its own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish or arrange to be published, for a period of 30 days:
(a) on its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/madinadawahcentre), a post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide 3.png” (in that order), contained in the folder “Instagram & Facebook Post” on Exhibit PK-3 to the affidavit of Poppy Kambas affirmed on 7 July 2025 (Ex PK-3), accompanied by a caption consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders, and cause this post to be designated a “featured” post;
(b)
a post on its Rumble page
(https://rumble.com/c/ALMADINADAWAHCENTRE) which includes:
(i) the video file “Rumble Post.mp4”, contained in the folder “Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;
(ii) the thumbnail image “Rumble Thumbnail.jpg” contained in the folder ”Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;
(iii) the title “CORRECTIVE ORDER: NOTICE BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA”; and
(iv) a “description” consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders,
and cause this video to be designated a “featured” video.
2. Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the first respondent, at his own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish:
(a) on his Instagram page (https://www.instagram.com/abu.ousayd/):
(i) for a period of 30 days, a grid post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide 3.png” (in that order), contained in the folder “Instagram & Facebook Post” on Ex PK-3, accompanied by a caption consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders, which grid post should be “pinned” to the top of his profile; and
(ii) for a period of 24 hours, a Story post “sharing” the grid post referred to in order 2(c)(i) above, which should be saved as a Story Highlight for a period of 30 days;
(b) for a period of 30 days, on his Soundcloud page (https://soundcloud.com/abuousaydofficial), a “track” which contains:
(i) the audio file “Corrective Notice Audio.m4a” contained in the folder “Soundcloud Post” on Ex PK-3,
(ii) as a thumbnail image, the image file “Corrective Notice – Thumbnail.png” contained in the folder “Soundcloud Post” on Ex PK-3; and
(iii) as a caption, the text set out in Annexure A to these orders,
and cause this track to be a “Spotlight” track.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Annexure A
CORRECTIVE NOTICE
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Unlawful behaviour based on racial hatred by William Haddad and Al Madina Dawah Centre Incorporated
Following action by Peter Wertheim AM and Robert Goot AO SC, Jewish members of the Australian community and officeholders in the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Federal Court of Australia has declared that William Haddad and Al Madina Dawah Centre Incorporated contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by making and publishing three lectures in a series titled “The Jews of Al Medina” which were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish members of the Australian community and which were made and published because of the Jewish race or ethnic origin.
The lectures were made and published on the Al Madina Dawah Centre’s Rumble page in November 2023.
The Federal Court of Australia found that the speeches included numerous statements which, by disparaging the Jewish people as a whole and repeating racist stereotypes about them, contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
The Federal Court of Australia ordered William Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre to remove the offending speeches and not to repeat or continue such unlawful behaviour and to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.
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.