Statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy applied for the first time
The decision in Kurraba Group Pty Ltd & Anor v Williams [2025] NSWDC 396 is the first time an Australian court has granted relief under the new statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy contained within clause 7, Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). These provisions give individuals a statutory cause of action against serious misuse of their private information and for the courts to intervene and provide remedies when private information is being weaponised online. These are important reforms in circumstances where digital publication of private data can very quickly cause harm to the individual.
The new law addresses a long‑identified gap in Australian law, where individuals had no direct way to sue for serious privacy breaches, such as online shaming, or the publication of private images. It also gives courts the ability to grant urgent injunctions to prevent further dissemination of private material.
This case provides the first example of how the courts are likely to apply the new tort.
Background
The first plaintiff, Kurraba Group Pty Ltd (Kurraba), an Australian property development company, lodged a development application for a life science hub in Alexandria, Sydney. The application was publicly announced in June 2024 and widely reported. The property that was subject of the development was owned and to be developed by Botany Road Development Pty Ltd (Botany). The second plaintiff, Mr Nicholas Smith (Mr Smith) is the CEO, sole director and shareholder of Botany.
A part of the development site consisted of premises situated at Wyndham Street, Alexandria (Premises) and was advertised for a short-term rental. The defendant, Michael Williams, was the sole director and secretary of Glexia Pty Ltd (Glexia), which inquired about the short-term rental and was informed about the development application, which included knocking down of the building at the Premises. Glexia entered into a commercial lease for six months for the Premises, ending 1 January 2025.
Despite having a short lease for the Premises, the defendant started raising concerns about the impact of the development. During a meeting with Mr Smith, the defendant demanded $50,000 in exchange for removing his objections to the development and indicated he had previously successfully extracted payments from large corporations in the past.
When this demand was refused, the defendant commenced what is described as a “campaign of extortion” in the decision. The defendant lodged long objections with the council, left a one‑star Google review of Kurraba, made allegations during a public committee meeting against Mr Smith and the company, and later created a website called “Kurraba Group Exposed.” The website contained a series of publications making serious allegations against both plaintiffs. The most pertinent matter noted by the Court was that some publications included misuse of private wedding photographs belonging to Mr Smith that he never intended to make public, and the photographs were published by the defendant in an attempt to portray Mr Smith in a morally delinquent and negative light.
The plaintiffs filed urgent ex parte proceedings and sought interlocutory injunctions based on defamation, intimidation, and the new statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy. The Court accepted that the District Court has the jurisdiction under the Privacy Act to grant the interim and final injunctive relief sought by Mr Smith and granted the interim relief.
While reciting the background of the dispute, the Court acknowledged and noted that one of the difficulties facing the courts in these matters is repeating the false allegations in a judgment, which can increase the damage to an aggrieved person.
Tort of serious invasion of privacy- legislative framework
The new tort of serious invasion of privacy introduces a statutory cause of action for two types of conduct, being intrusion into someone’s private activities and misuse of their private information. To establish the tort, a plaintiff must show that
- they had a reasonable expectation of privacy;
- that the conduct was intentional or reckless; and
- that the invasion was serious.
The Court must also consider whether the privacy interest outweighs any competing public interest in publication.
Application of the framework
The Court held that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the misuse of Mr Smith’s private wedding photographs. These photographs were clearly private, never intended for public release, and used by the defendant in a manner capable of being deeply harmful. The Court recognised the inherently private nature of such images. The defendant’s behaviour appeared to be motivated by financial pressure rather than any genuine public interest.
The Court made orders granting the interim injunction pursuant to the tort of serious invasion of privacy.
Implications and the future of Australian Privacy Law
This decision confirms the need for the new, stricter laws in the Australian privacy scheme. Before the 2025 reforms, Australia had no statutory privacy tort, leaving many forms of digital privacy harm without an adequate remedy. This judgment demonstrates the circumstances where the misuse of private information, especially where images or personal details are published online in harmful ways, can be addressed under the statutory provisions.
The new statutory provisions are especially helpful for aggrieved parties where ongoing publication is occurring or threatened. As this tort is more relied upon, it is likely that there will be examination of the terms such as “serious”, “invasion”, the public interest test, and the types of remedies available by the Courts to address complained of conduct.
Kurraba Group v Williams is likely to become one of the first reference points in shaping how Australia’s new privacy laws develop, particularly in the context of online publication and escalating digital harms.
If you are experiencing a breach of your privacy or would like some advice on a related issue, please contact our Dispute Resolution & Advisory team.
Authors: Gavin Stuart and Shreya Dutt