Federal Court dismisses contempt application in Lattouf v ABC proceedings
The Federal Court recently dismissed an application seeking orders that the Registrar bring contempt proceedings against Nine Entertainment and members of its legal and editorial staff.
The application arose in Antoinette Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In those proceedings, individuals who had complained about Ms Lattouf to the ABC had their names and contact details protected by a non-publication order. It was alleged that the Respondent published news articles in breach of the order.
The application was dismissed. The articles complained of were published before the non-publication order was made. Although the articles remained online after the order was made, they were later removed.
Weighing the exercise of the Court’s discretion, Rangiah J observed that although there was a reasonably arguable case against the companies and members of its editorial staff, there were also reasonably arguable defences, including that “in the absence of being notified of the identities of the relevant nine Intervening Parties, they could not know what information they were prohibited from disclosing.” Moreover, His Honour observed that it is open for the Intervening Parties to bring proceedings themselves.
In these circumstances, Rangiah J declined to make the orders sought.
Of interest to practitioners, Rangiah J also noted that there was “no reasonable basis” to bring proceedings against members of Nine’s in-house legal staff, including because “there is no evidence that they had any control over the content or publication of the articles,” nor was there evidence that they gave advice.
Tom Blackburn SC of Banco Chambers, together with Lyndelle Barnett and Matt Forbes, appeared for Nine and the alleged contemnors. They were instructed by Minter Ellison.
The Federal Court recently dismissed an application seeking orders that the Registrar bring contempt proceedings against Nine Entertainment and members of its legal and editorial staff.
The application arose in Antoinette Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In those proceedings, individuals who had complained about Ms Lattouf to the ABC had their names and contact details protected by a non-publication order. It was alleged that the Respondent published news articles in breach of the order.
The application was dismissed. The articles complained of were published before the non-publication order was made. Although the articles remained online after the order was made, they were later removed.
Weighing the exercise of the Court’s discretion, Rangiah J observed that although there was a reasonably arguable case against the companies and members of its editorial staff, there were also reasonably arguable defences, including that “in the absence of being notified of the identities of the relevant nine Intervening Parties, they could not know what information they were prohibited from disclosing.” Moreover, His Honour observed that it is open for the Intervening Parties to bring proceedings themselves.
In these circumstances, Rangiah J declined to make the orders sought.
Of interest to practitioners, Rangiah J also noted that there was “no reasonable basis” to bring proceedings against members of Nine’s in-house legal staff, including because “there is no evidence that they had any control over the content or publication of the articles,” nor was there evidence that they gave advice.
Tom Blackburn SC of Banco Chambers, together with Lyndelle Barnett and Matt Forbes, appeared for Nine and the alleged contemnors. They were instructed by Minter Ellison.
Link to judgment