Carol Anne Kidu v Hollie Fifer [2016] NSWSC 982

Carol Anne Kidu v Hollie Fifer [2016] NSWSC 982

The Plaintiff was not entitled to a final injunction because the initial arrangement did not objectively amount to a legally enforceable contract, and in any event the evidence showed that from 7 March 2012 and thereafter Ms Fifer made the Plaintiff aware that she wished to make a longer documentary for public release and of the developing focus of the film. The Plaintiff was an experienced and forthright politician, not vulnerable or under a special disadvantage, and Ms Fifer did not take advantage of her or act unconscionably in using the footage in The Opposition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking a Final Injunction / Final Hearing After an Interim Injunction
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; final injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['permanent Injunction' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'implied Contractual Term' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disadvantage' 'australian Consumer Law S 20']
['equity' 'contract' 'consumer Law'] ['permanent Injunction' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'implied Contractual Term' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disadvantage' 'australian Consumer Law S 20']

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 Proceedings Seeking a Final Injunction / Final Hearing After an Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the arrangement made before the first filmed interview gave rise to a legally enforceable contract restricting use of the footage to a student assignment documentary.' "Whether an implied term prevented Ms Fifer from using the footage for any purpose other than a student assignment documentary about the Plaintiff's last months in politics." 'Whether Ms Fifer, and consequently the other defendants, acted unconscionably by using footage in a documentary for public release with a changed focus.' 'Whether the Plaintiff was under a special disadvantage or was vulnerable in her dealings with Ms Fifer so as to support equitable relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff was not entitled to a final injunction because the initial arrangement did not objectively amount to a legally enforceable contract, and in any event the evidence showed that from 7 March 2012 and thereafter Ms Fifer made the Plaintiff aware that she wished to make a longer documentary for public release and of the developing focus of the film. The Plaintiff was an experienced and forthright politician, not vulnerable or under a special disadvantage, and Ms Fifer did not take advantage of her or act unconscionably in using the footage in The Opposition.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; final injunction refused.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants on the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.' 'The parties are to be heard on costs and on how any claim for damages by the defendants is to be dealt with.']