Smolin v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 433

Smolin v Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 433

The discretionary factors strongly favoured release of the Hearne v Street obligation for the limited purpose of disclosure to police, given the seriousness and public interest in investigating potential criminal conduct, with adequate protection provided by the limited non-publication order proposed by the defendants. A broader suppression order sought by the plaintiff was not necessary, lacked utility, and was unenforceable due to widespread prior publication of the material.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anton Smolin; Defendant: Dailymail.Com Australia Pty Ltd; Defendant: Tita Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Procedural Ruling on Release of Implied Obligations and Non Publication Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff's wider non-publication order refused; defendants' release from Hearne v Street obligations granted; limited non-publication order made; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
Implied Undertaking, Non Publication Orders, Release of Documents Under Subpoena, Suppression Orders, Public Interest Disclosure, Costs
Tort Defamation Procedure Implied Undertaking Non Publication Orders Release of Documents Under Subpoena Suppression Orders Public Interest Disclosure +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anton Smolin

Plaintiff

Dailymail.Com Australia Pty Ltd

Defendant

Tita Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Procedural Ruling on Release of Implied Obligations and Non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be released from Hearne v Street obligations to provide an e-book to police
  2. 2 Whether a wider non-publication order should be granted to the plaintiff under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
  3. 3 Balancing open justice and confidentiality in the context of defamation proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The discretionary factors strongly favoured release of the Hearne v Street obligation for the limited purpose of disclosure to police, given the seriousness and public interest in investigating potential criminal conduct, with adequate protection provided by the limited non-publication order proposed by the defendants. A broader suppression order sought by the plaintiff was not necessary, lacked utility, and was unenforceable due to widespread prior publication of the material.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's wider non-publication order refused; defendants' release from Hearne v Street obligations granted; limited non-publication order made; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs.

Orders

  • The interim order of 13 September 2024 made pursuant to the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) is vacated; plaintiff's application for its continuation refused.
  • Defendants are released from Hearne v Street obligations concerning the e-book solely for the purpose of providing it to police in NSW and Queensland to report possible criminal conduct by the plaintiff.