AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 863

AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 863

Reliance on evidence merely proving what transpired at Parliamentary Committee proceedings does not offend s 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), and the defendants are entitled to a variation of the interlocutory injunction to permit publication of a fair and accurate report of those proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Equity Application (interlocutory Injunction) / Application to Vary Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary interlocutory injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'defamation']
['equity' 'evidence'] ['injunctions' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'defamation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Application (interlocutory Injunction) / Application to Vary Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether publication of a fair report of Parliamentary Committee proceedings would breach an existing interlocutory injunction' 'Whether reliance on affidavit evidence about Parliamentary Committee proceedings infringes s 16(3) Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Reliance on evidence merely proving what transpired at Parliamentary Committee proceedings does not offend s 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), and the defendants are entitled to a variation of the interlocutory injunction to permit publication of a fair and accurate report of those proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to vary interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to vary the interlocutory injunction in the terms sought.' "The plaintiffs to pay the first, third and fourth defendants' costs of the Motion." 'Order 1 is not to take effect until 4pm on the day of judgment.']