ACP Publishing Pty Ltd v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 167

ACP Publishing Pty Ltd v Pacific Publications Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 167

Interim relief was declined because, although the plaintiff's evidence appeared to raise a serious question to be tried, the final hearing was fixed within about five days, the defendant's allegation had already been published, an effective injunction would be difficult to frame, the Court was reluctant to restrain free speech, and the judge was not convinced that repetition would cause damage sufficient to justify further restraint.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Ex Parte Restraint Pending Final Hearing
Outcome
Interim relief declined; directions made.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience' 'free Speech' 'reputation' 'alleged Hoax Interview']
['equity' 'injunctions'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience' 'free Speech' 'reputation' 'alleged Hoax Interview']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Ex Parte Restraint Pending Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should obtain interim relief restraining the defendant from representing that the interview published in the plaintiff's magazine was a hoax or otherwise fictitious until the final hearing." 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that an interview between Andrew Golden and Monica Lewinsky actually occurred.' "Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable damage justified restraining the defendant's speech for the short period before trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

Interim relief was declined because, although the plaintiff's evidence appeared to raise a serious question to be tried, the final hearing was fixed within about five days, the defendant's allegation had already been published, an effective injunction would be difficult to frame, the Court was reluctant to restrain free speech, and the judge was not convinced that repetition would cause damage sufficient to justify further restraint.

Court Disposition

Interim relief declined; directions made.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to file and serve a duly verified statement of claim no later than 4pm on Friday 5 March 1999.' 'The defendant is to file and serve a duly verified defence no later than 4pm on 8 March 1999.' 'Apart from the question as to whether there was an interview, no further evidence is intended at this...