DLS Portal Maintenance Outage September 2025

The DLS Portal will be offline for maintenance and upgrades from 6.00pm (AEST) Friday, 12 September 2025 to 8.00am (AEST) Monday, 15 September 2025.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill

[2006] HCA 46
Judgment date
Case number
H1/2006
Before
Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan JJ
Catchwords

Defamation – Injunctions – Interlocutory injunctions – Interlocutory injunction to restrain publication – Appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime – Principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted – Relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions – Significance of value of free speech – Significance of avoiding "trial by media" – Whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded – Significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.

Injunctions – Interlocutory injunctions – Defamation – Whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter – Relationship between Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 and American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 – Whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by Beecham – Whether Full Court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.

Defamation – Injunctions – Jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter – Nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication – Effect of Common Law Procedure Act 1854 (UK) – Effect of Judicature Act 1873 (UK).

Appeal – Interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings – Necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by High Court – Whether error shown in approach and conclusion of Full Court and primary judge.

Defamation – Defences – Justification – Whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by Defamation Act 1957 (Tas) s 15.

Words and phrases – "public benefit", "public interest".

Common Law Procedure Act 1854 (UK) – ss 79, 82.

Judicature Act 1873 (UK) – s 25(8).

Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 (Tas) – s 11(12).

Defamation Act 1957 (Tas) – s 15.

Files
46.rtf (187.08 KB)
46.pdf (453.77 KB)