Brigthen Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited and Ors [2009] NSWSC 319

Brigthen Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited and Ors [2009] NSWSC 319

The injunction was refused because the Plaintiff did not persuade the Court that there was a prima facie case in trespass or under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth); even if there were, the unconscionability test was not satisfied, damages including possible exemplary damages would be adequate, and the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory injunctive relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application to Restrain a Television Broadcast
Outcome
Application for injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'television Broadcast' 'trespass to Land' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages']
['procedure' 'torts' 'trade Practices' 'defamation'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'television Broadcast' 'trespass to Land' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defamation' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages']

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 / Urgent Interlocutory Application to Restrain a Television Broadcast

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff should be granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the scheduled broadcast of a segment on A Current Affair.' 'Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case in trespass arising from activity by journalists or a film crew at the Fairmont Resort.' 'Whether any trespass made publication unconscionable so as to warrant injunctive relief.' 'Whether the foreshadowed claim under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) supported interlocutory relief.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was refused because the Plaintiff did not persuade the Court that there was a prima facie case in trespass or under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth); even if there were, the unconscionability test was not satisfied, damages including possible exemplary damages would be adequate, and the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory injunction sought in paragraph 4 of the Summons filed today is refused.' 'The Summons is listed for directions before the Registrar at 9.00 am on Monday, 11 May 2009.' "The costs of today's application are reserved." 'If the parties wish to advance further submissions on costs, the matter can be...