About Us

We work collaboratively with our clients to build strong, sustainable relationships. Our team is committed to delivering consistent high standards of service, and we understand the importance of accessibility. Working with us, you'll enjoy open communication, meaning well scoped, properly resourced and effectively managed matters.

Learn More

Latest Case

Advising on market-changing divestments September 25, 2018

Maddocks  acted for the founder of Australia’s largest private pilot training school, Soar Aviation, on the group’s 50 percent sale to Australian private equity investor The Growth Fund. Soar Aviation was started in 2012 by … Continued

Latest News

Making a difference: Maddocks senior associate wins Australian Young Lawyer of the Year October 22, 2018

Monday 22 October 2018 Maddocks senior associate Tamsin Webster has been awarded the 2018 Australian Young Lawyer of the Year by the Law Council of Australia. Tamsin, a member of the firm’s Employment, Safety and … Continued

Latest Article

Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Act 2018 (Cth) expands scope for challenges to Commonwealth procurement decisions October 18, 2018

On 18 October 2018, the Senate passed the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 (Cth) (the Bill) without amendment. The Bill received Royal Assent on 19 October 2018. The Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Act 2018 (Cth) … Continued

Remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in NSW

Invasion of privacy has recently been back in the headlines.

Gina Rinehart is reportedly suing Channel Nine and the production company, Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder, over the broadcast of the 2015 mini-series House of Hancock. Mrs Rinehart’s claim is based on a number of causes of action including injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct.

On 11 March 2016, Justice McCallum of the Supreme Court of NSW was reportedly told Mrs Rinehart was pursuing this suit as a test case for the establishment of a privacy tort in Australia. The defendants in the House of Hancock proceedings are reportedly considering a strike-out application.

This announcement from Mrs Rinehart’s legal team came one week after the Standing Committee on Law and Justice handed down its final report from its inquiry into the remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in NSW. The Standing Committee’s report is the latest in a long line of reports over the last eight years which have each recommended that a statutory cause of action for invasion of privacy be enacted federally or at a state level.

The inquiry was launched as a result of increasing community concern that the use of technology, including social media and surveillance technology, was intruding upon people’s day to day lives and privacy. The submissions received by the inquiry highlighted that there were three main areas of concern regarding breach of privacy:

  • ‘revenge pornography’ and other types of technology-facilitated abuse
  • other forms of unauthorised surveillance or information capture (for example, through the use of hidden cameras or drones)
  • ‘big data’ breaches (for example, companies accidentally publishing a customer’s private information on the internet).

The Standing Committee found the existing remedies for serious invasion of privacy in NSW were inadequate and recommended that, among other things:

  • The NSW Government should introduce a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. The Standing Committee agreed that a national approach would be preferable. However, the Standing Committee considered that the lack of development of the common law, and political will federally, warranted NSW ‘taking the lead on the issue’.
  • The statutory cause of action should be based on the model proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission, detailed in its 2014 report, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. Click here to read our previous article on this ALRC report and the proposed elements of the statutory cause of action.
  • The NSW Government should consider amending the ALRC model to incorporate a fault element of:
    • intent, recklessness and negligence for governments and corporations
    • intent and recklessness for natural persons.

We will keep you posted about whether the Standing Committee’s recommendations receive any more traction than the previous recommendations made by numerous Law Reform Commissions in Australia over the last eight years.

If you would like further information, please contact a member of our Dispute Resolution & Litigation Team.

Author
ERIN HOURIGAN 2cm 300ppi B&W psd 2012
Erin Hourigan | Senior Associate
Tel +61 2 9291 6308
E erin.hourigan@maddocks.com.au

Invasion of privacy has recently been back in the headlines.

Gina Rinehart is reportedly suing Channel Nine and the production company, Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder, over the broadcast of the 2015 mini-series House of Hancock. Mrs Rinehart’s claim is based on a number of causes of action including injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct.

On 11 March 2016, Justice McCallum of the Supreme Court of NSW was reportedly told Mrs Rinehart was pursuing this suit as a test case for the establishment of a privacy tort in Australia. The defendants in the House of Hancock proceedings are reportedly considering a strike-out application.

This announcement from Mrs Rinehart’s legal team came one week after the Standing Committee on Law and Justice handed down its final report from its inquiry into the remedies for the serious invasion of privacy in NSW. The Standing Committee’s report is the latest in a long line of reports over the last eight years which have each recommended that a statutory cause of action for invasion of privacy be enacted federally or at a state level.

The inquiry was launched as a result of increasing community concern that the use of technology, including social media and surveillance technology, was intruding upon people’s day to day lives and privacy. The submissions received by the inquiry highlighted that there were three main areas of concern regarding breach of privacy:

  • ‘revenge pornography’ and other types of technology-facilitated abuse
  • other forms of unauthorised surveillance or information capture (for example, through the use of hidden cameras or drones)
  • ‘big data’ breaches (for example, companies accidentally publishing a customer’s private information on the internet).

The Standing Committee found the existing remedies for serious invasion of privacy in NSW were inadequate and recommended that, among other things:

  • The NSW Government should introduce a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. The Standing Committee agreed that a national approach would be preferable. However, the Standing Committee considered that the lack of development of the common law, and political will federally, warranted NSW ‘taking the lead on the issue’.
  • The statutory cause of action should be based on the model proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission, detailed in its 2014 report, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. Click here to read our previous article on this ALRC report and the proposed elements of the statutory cause of action.
  • The NSW Government should consider amending the ALRC model to incorporate a fault element of:
    • intent, recklessness and negligence for governments and corporations
    • intent and recklessness for natural persons.

We will keep you posted about whether the Standing Committee’s recommendations receive any more traction than the previous recommendations made by numerous Law Reform Commissions in Australia over the last eight years.

If you would like further information, please contact a member of our Dispute Resolution & Litigation Team.

Author
ERIN HOURIGAN 2cm 300ppi B&W psd 2012
Erin Hourigan | Senior Associate
Tel +61 2 9291 6308
E erin.hourigan@maddocks.com.au