Kidu v Fifer & Ors (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 550

Kidu v Fifer & Ors (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 550

There was a proper and sufficient basis to extend the injunction because the documentary's blackout text indicated an intention to recreate the enjoined footage, and at least one included audio recording was likely derived only from the enjoined footage rather than public or archival material. Allowing publication of summaries, representations or descriptions revealing the content of restrained recordings would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction and the maintenance of the status quo before trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List; Application for Supplementary Orders to Extend Scope of Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Injunction extended in scope.
Legal Topics
['injunction' 'supplementary Orders' 'publication Restraint' 'documentary Film' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']
['equity'] ['injunction' 'supplementary Orders' 'publication Restraint' 'documentary Film' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Duty List; Application for Supplementary Orders to Extend Scope of Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the current re-edited documentary contained material derived from or descriptive of material subject to the existing injunction.' 'Whether supplementary orders should be made to restrain publication of summaries, representations or descriptions revealing the content of the enjoined recordings.' 'Whether defendants should be required to identify persons able to exhibit the current version of the documentary and take reasonable steps to prevent inconsistent exhibition.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was a proper and sufficient basis to extend the injunction because the documentary's blackout text indicated an intention to recreate the enjoined footage, and at least one included audio recording was likely derived only from the enjoined footage rather than public or archival material. Allowing publication of summaries, representations or descriptions revealing the content of restrained recordings would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction and the maintenance of the status quo before trial.

Court Disposition

Injunction extended in scope.

Orders

  • ['Upon the Plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages and paying security into Court in the sum of $250,000, until final hearing or further order, the First Defendant, Second Defendant and Third Defendant, by themselves, their servants and agents, be restrained from publishing, distributing or exhibiting...