Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy Now in Force

Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy Now in Force

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Statutory Tort for Serious Invasion of Privacy Now in Force

}

5 min read

18 Jun 2025

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • A new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy commenced on 10 June 2025
  • Individuals can bring an action against another person for intruding upon their seclusion and/or misusing their information
  • Available remedies include damages, injunctions, an order to apologise, and an order to destroy material obtained through the invasion of privacy
  • Journalists are largely exempt

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

A tort is a civil wrong wherein one party causes loss or harm to another. A cause of action in tort allows the affected party to sue the wrongdoer for damages or other relief.  Whether an action in tort for invasion of privacy exists in Australia has been a topic of contention since the early 2000s.

A new suite of privacy law reforms, contained in the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) (the Act) is being rolled out across the year and brings an end to this uncertainty. On 10 June 2025 a new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy came into effect.

The Act states that the purpose of these provisions is to:

  • establish a cause of action for serious invasions of privacy;
  • provide for defences, remedies and exemptions;
  • recognise that the protection of privacy is a public interest to be balanced with other public interests; and
  • implement Australia’s international obligations in relation to privacy, specifically under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Cause of Action

Under the Act, an individual now has a cause of action in tort against another person where:

(a)        their privacy has been invaded by:
          (i) an intrusion into their seclusion; or
          (ii) the misuse of information relating to them; and

(b)        a person in their position would reasonably have expected privacy in all the circumstances; and
(c)        the invasion of privacy was intentional or reckless; and
(d)        the invasion of privacy was serious; and
(e)        the public interest in the individual’s privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest.

It is not necessary to prove damage for an invasion of privacy to be actionable.

Defences

Some defences include:

(a)        the invasion of privacy was required by law;

(b)        the individual consented to the invasion of privacy; or

(c)        the defendant reasonably believed the invasion of privacy was necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life, health or safety of a person.

 

Remedies

If it finds that a serious invasion of privacy has occurred, a court may grant one or more of the following remedies:

(a)        an award of damages up to the greater of $478,550, and the maximum amount of damages for non‑economic loss that may be awarded in defamation proceedings in Australia;

(b)        an account of profits;

(c)        an injunction;

(d)        an order requiring the defendant to apologise to the plaintiff;

(e)        a correction order;

(f)        an order:

          (i) that any material (including copies) that is in the defendant’s possession or that the defendant is able to retrieve; and

          (ii) that was obtained or made as a result of the invasion of privacy or was misused during the course of the invasion of privacy;

          be destroyed, be delivered up to the plaintiff or be dealt with as the court directs.

 

(g)        a declaration that the defendant has seriously invaded the plaintiff’s privacy.

 

Exemptions

Notably, an exemption is provided for journalists and other related parties if the invasion of privacy occurs in the collection, preparation for publication or publication of journalistic material.

Application in Other Jurisdictions

Similar torts of privacy have been recognised to varying degrees in the USA, UK and New Zealand, and provide insight into the types of claims that may arise under this new statutory tort. ALRC Report 123 Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era, published 15 July 2014 (Report), discusses several cases where plaintiffs have successfully sued for invasion of privacy in those jurisdictions.  

In the New Zealand case of C v Holland [2012] 3 NZLR 672, the courts first recognised the existence of a tort of invasion of privacy in New Zealand.  The case involved a man who secretly installed a video camera and recorded his flatmate while she was showering.

According to the Report, intrusion upon seclusion has been found to include not only entry into physical spaces but also ‘watching, listening to, or recording someone’s private activities or private affairs.’ Specific examples include ‘taking a photo of someone in a change room, reading their bank statements, tapping their phone calls, or hacking into their computer.’

The Report notes that, in the USA intrusion upon seclusion cases have typically focused on how private information is obtained, rather than the publication of that information.

Examples of misuse of information, as identified in the Report, include ‘publishing a person’s medical records in a newspaper or posting sexually explicit photographs of someone on the internet, without their permission.’

Conclusion

This new statutory cause of action ends longstanding uncertainty about the existence of a tort for serious invasion of privacy in Australia. It will be important to watch how the case law develops, and we will continue to provide updates as it does.

If you are unsure about your obligations under the new privacy reforms – or your privacy obligations broadly – please contact Craig Hong or John Davies on (07) 3220 1144 or via email: craig@hillhouse.com.au.

How good planning can minimise Will disputes

How good planning can minimise Will disputes

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

How good planning can minimise Will disputes

Author: Robert Lamb

}

2 min read

5 Nov 2019

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • There is a rise in the number of challenges of Wills
  • Each person’s situation is unique and an experienced lawyer is required to best protect your interests
  • Good planning and good advice will minimise and even negate a Will dispute

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

A recent survey in February 2019 in the United Kingdom uncovered some reasons why there appears to have been a generational change to children considering disputing their entitlements under their parent’s Will, with up to 1 in 4 people saying they would challenge their parent’s Will if they were left out or not properly provided for in the Will.

Our research and experience indicates that some of the reasons this change may have occurred and in such a high number, particularly in relation to Family Provision Claims are:

  1. Greater awareness and advertisement of people’s legal rights for these type of claims;
  2. Rising property prices coupled with superannuation have meant there is often a large estate worth disputing that can sustain legal fees being paid from the Estate;
  3. Possibly a greater sense of entitlement by the millennium generation who feel that their parents are obliged to look after them;
  4. The growth of blended families. Often a dispute will arise between the children of a first marriage with a second or third spouse who may through accident, design or operation of law be left all of the majority of the deceased’s estate; and
  5. Growth of homemade or Do it Yourself (DIY) Wills.

A DIY Will is often not worth the paper it is written on.  To properly draft your Will requires a lawyer with the appropriate experience to take into account all of your personal circumstances, your wishes, your family situation, your possible estate, your superannuation and the law so you can be properly advised on your unique succession plan.

As Michael Morris says in his article “Succession Planning For Family Owned Agribusiness”, every succession plan is different because every family and business is different.

Open and honest discussions within the family, coupled with tailored advice from your professional advisors working together, is essential.  The same advice applies to all succession planning and we at Hillhouse have the knowledge and experience to ensure your wishes are carried out as best the law.  

More often than not good planning and good advice will minimise and even negate a child or children disputing your Will.

What you need to know before hiring an electric scooter. Warning, it’s not as straight-forward as it may seem

What you need to know before hiring an electric scooter. Warning, it’s not as straight-forward as it may seem

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

What you need to know before hiring an electric scooter. Warning, it’s not as straight-forward as it may seem

}

8 min read

22 Aug 2019

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • Riders of electric scooters are unlikely to be insured for injuries caused to third parties or property damage
  • Those hiring electric scooters may be liable to reimburse the scooter owner or local council for third party claims

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

When hiring an electric scooter, the last thing you want is to be involved in an accident where you injure a third party. However, accidents can and do happen.

In Queensland, drivers of registered vehicles are covered by compulsory third party (CTP) insurance for liability for personal injury to third parties. For example, if the vehicle collides with a pedestrian, and the driver is at fault, the CTP insurance will cover the driver’s liability to the pedestrian.

However, as electric scooters are not registered vehicles, they are not covered by CTP insurance.

This raises the question of what, if any, legal protection do riders of electric scooters have for injuries they cause to third parties? The short answer seems to be “none”.

Insurance held by owners of electric scooters

If you have hired a scooter and there is an accident, which has caused damage or injured someone, the first port of call is to determine whether the owner of the electric scooter holds an insurance policy that covers the rider.

By way of example, in the case of Lime scooters, there is only one clause in the Lime User Agreement that refers to insurance. It says that Lime will hold “all necessary insurance associated with the [scooters] as required by applicable law”.

As the law does not require the owner or rider of the scooters to hold insurance, this clause does not require Lime to hold insurance.

Insurance under the rider’s home or contents insurance

Home or contents insurance policies usually include a legal and public liability insurance component.

This component is often thought of as providing coverage for injuries sustained by visitors to the home – for example, if a visitor was to slip over on a wet floor while at the home.

While that is the case, coverage extends further and includes a range of circumstances in which the policyholder may have a legal liability to a third party for personal injury or damage to property. For example, where a person is riding a bicycle and they crash into another person or a vehicle, this component will usually cover liability to the other person or vehicle owner.

However, while these policies might extend to the riding of bicycles, they don’t necessarily extend to the riding of electric scooters, as discussed further below.

Let’s review a few policies to see what is covered. Please note these were current at time of writing this article.

RACQ Home and Contents Insurance 

An example of this can be found in RACQ’s policy, which provides the following in respect of coverage for legal liability:

“Your legal liability and the legal liability of anyone who permanently lives with you at the home (except for a boarder or housemate) to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from an accident that occurs in Australia and which causes: 

  • death or injury
  • loss of or damage to property

For example, if you are riding a bicycle and hit a jogger because you weren’t paying attention to the path in front of you, then you may be liable to pay them compensation for that accident.”

However, the devil is in the detail as the policy also contains the following exclusion:

“Using, owning or controlling a vehicle (except for a bicycle, golf buggy, wheelchair, or ride on mower or other garden appliance, which doesn’t need to be registered by law).”

It follows that if an electric scooter is considered to be a vehicle, liability arising from riding it is excluded from coverage under the policy.

The policy does not define “vehicle”, but in our view an electric scooter falls within the ordinary meaning of that word. As such, it seems that liability arising from riding an electric scooter would not be covered by RACQ’s policy.

Allianz Home and Contents Insurance

Allianz’s policy provides the following in respect of coverage for legal liability:

“We will cover your legal liability for payment of compensation relating to death, bodily injury or illness, and/or physical loss of or damage to property, which is caused by an accident (or series of accidents) attributable to one source or originating cause.”

However, the policy also contains the following exclusion:

“Claims arising out of your ownership, possession or use of any … mechanically propelled vehicle, except garden equipment, golf buggy or wheelchair which do not need to be registered or do not require statutory bodily injury cover to be taken out”.

It follows that if an electric scooter is considered to be a mechanically propelled vehicle, liability arising from riding it is excluded from coverage under the policy.

The term “mechanically propelled vehicle” is not defined in the policy, but in our view an electric scooter falls within the ordinary meaning of that word. As such, it seems that liability arising from riding an electric scooter would not be covered by Allianz’s policy.

AAMI Home and Contents Insurance

AAMI’s policy provides the following in respect of coverage for legal liability:

“We cover your legal liability to pay compensation for death or bodily injury to other people, or loss or damage to their property resulting from an incident which happens anywhere in Australia or New Zealand during the period of insurance which is unrelated to your ownership of the building or land at the insured address”.

However, the policy also contains the following exclusion:

“The use or ownership of a motor vehicle or motorcycle or instructing someone on how to use it unless at the time of the incident, it was being used legally and did not have to be insured under any compulsory third party insurance laws and was: 

  • a remote controlled motor car;
  • a wheelchair or a mobility scooter designed to accommodate physical disabilities or the elderly;
  • a golf cart or buggy; and
  • domestic gardening equipment (e.g. ride-on mower).”

It follows that if an electric scooter is considered to be a motor vehicle, liability arising from riding it is excluded from coverage under the policy.

The policy does not define “motor vehicle”, but in our view an electric scooter falls within the ordinary meaning of that word. As such, it seems that liability arising from riding an electric scooter would not be covered by AAMI’s policy.

Additional liability

But wait, there’s more – the rider might also be liable to the owner or local council.

Not only might a rider not be insured and have to pay any damages out of their own pocket, if the injured person sued the owner or local council, the rider may have to cover the owner’s or local council’s legal costs and any damages they pay.

This liability can arise because of indemnities (promises to protect against legal liability) given by the rider under the agreement with the scooter owner.

For example, in the case of Lime scooters, there are extensive indemnities contained in the Lime User Agreement – see for example clauses 1.4.7, 5.1 and 8.

If for example a person was riding a Lime scooter in Brisbane, they injured a pedestrian and were at fault, the pedestrian might seek damages from the rider, Lime and Brisbane City Council.

In that instance, Lime and Brisbane City Council may seek to rely on the indemnities in the Lime User Agreement so that the rider has to pay Lime’s and Brisbane City Council’s legal costs and any damages they pay to the injured person. 

How to protect yourself

What can riders of electric scooters do to protect themselves against legal liability for injury to third parties or damage to property?

Other than not riding the electric scooters at all, the starting point is to try and obtain appropriate insurance.

It may be that there is a public or legal liability component of a home or contents insurance policy that covers liability arising from riding an electric scooter. We have not considered all of the policies on the market – only the three noted above.

An insurer may also be willing to issue a personal liability policy that extends to cover legal liability arising out of riding an electric scooter.

However, while riders may be able to obtain insurance that covers their legal liability to an injured third party, they may be unlikely to obtain insurance that covers their liability to the owner or local council under any indemnities given.

That being said, owners or local councils may be reluctant to enforce an indemnity in light of the bad publicity that doing so may generate.

Furthermore, the rider may be able to argue that the indemnity is an unfair contract term under the Australian Consumer Law and obtain an injunction preventing the owner or local council from relying on the indemnity.

The simple solution, at least from the perspective of riders and injured persons, is for the government to extend the CTP insurance regime to cover electric scooters. This will give riders the protection of being covered by insurance and give victims the comfort that there will be a financial capacity to meet their claim.

We have seen calls for this to occur and we wait to see what, if any, action is taken. We will endeavour to keep you posted and can advise you on your legal rights if a claim is made against you as the rider of an electric scooter.

The importance of reviewing comments on your business’s public social media pages

The importance of reviewing comments on your business’s public social media pages

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

The importance of reviewing comments on your business’s public social media pages

}

4 min read

3 Jul 2019

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • Businesses may be liable for defamatory comments made on their social media pages by members of the public.
  • Where a social media platform has the ability to require comments be approved before they are visible, such ability should be enabled.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Have you ever had a potentially defamatory comment made on your business’s social media page?

How did you respond? Did you even know the comment had been made?

Perhaps you deleted or hid the comment immediately, or allowed it to remain in the interests of “free speech” or to increase interest in the post?

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales calls for increased vigilance in managing public social media pages. The Court determined that administrators of a public Facebook page can be liable as “publishers” of defamatory comments made by a third party, even if the administrators are unaware of the comments.

The facts

The case concerned public Facebook pages of certain news media outlets. Posts containing snippets of news articles and links to those articles were posted on their public Facebook pages. Certain comments made on the posts by third parties were said to be defamatory. The issue for determination was whether the media outlets had “published” the comments made by the third parties, and therefore could be held liable for defamation as if they had made the comments themselves.

Relevant factors

The Court took a number of factors into account in determining that the news media outlets were “publishers” of the third party comments. These included:

  • The news media outlets were in the business of distributing material to the public;
  • The evidence revealed it was important to the administrators that comments were allowed and in fact encouraged on their public Facebook pages so as to increase interest and therefore advertising revenue;
  • The administrators were able to hide comments until approved by them (albeit the tools that would enable them to do so were not used, and to use them would have required additional staff resources);
  • The nature of the Facebook posts were such that they were likely to provoke potentially defamatory comments;
  • As businesses choose to operate a public Facebook page for commercial benefit, they assume the risk that they will be liable for comments made on the page by third parties; and
  • Generally, comments from third parties on public Facebook pages are solicited, invited and welcome.

Practical tips for your business

Though the decision dealt with public Facebook pages operated by news media outlets, the same result could arise in respect of public Facebook pages operated by other types of businesses.

If your business has a public Facebook page, you should consider taking steps to reduce your legal exposure to defamatory comments posted by third parties.

Steps that may reduce your legal exposure can include:

  • Refraining from posting on topics that are likely to provoke defamatory reactions/statements;
  • Setting the profanity filter to ‘strong’;
  • Adding words to the existing ‘page moderation’ function so comments containing certain words will be automatically hidden;
  • Having a clear policy regarding the process for approving comments before they are visible; and
  • Blocking users that post potentially defamatory comments.

Application to areas other than defamation

Although the decision only dealt with “publication” in the context of defamation law, it raises the interesting question of whether the administrator of a public Facebook page might be liable under other laws for “publishing” something contained in a comment by a third party.

For example, assume a business publishes a post on its public Facebook page in relation to divorce. A third party then makes a comment on the post to the effect that they had been involved in bitter family law proceedings with their former spouse, who they name and “tag” in the comment.

Under s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it is an offence for a person to publish or disseminate to the public anything that identifies a party to family law proceedings. By posting a comment that identifies themselves and their former spouse, the third party may have breached s 121. Further, the business may also have breached s 121 as a “publisher” of the comment, based on the reasoning in the case discussed above.

Future Development

Given the potential wide-reaching consequences of this decision, it will be interesting to see if the decision is appealed and whether the general principles are applied to other areas of law that involve the “publication” of information.

Conclusion

Hillhouse Legal Partners can provide you with tailored advice on your business’s rights and responsibilities when it comes to managing the legal risks of social media.

Link to case: Voller v Nationwide News Pty Ltd; Voller v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Voller v Australian News Channel Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 766

Common mistakes found in shareholder agreements

Common mistakes found in shareholder agreements

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Hillhouse talks about common mistakes found in shareholder agreements

Author: Craig Hong

}

3 min read

9 Jun 2019

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • A tailored shareholder agreement can save you tens of thousands of dollars or more down the track
  • Key clauses you should consider to protect yourself and your company
  • Free questionnaire to help you determine what you need in your tailored shareholder agreement

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

The depth and breadth of shareholder disputes we see would no doubt surprise most people.

In fact, shareholders disputes are still one of the most common issues commercial and litigation lawyers encounter on a daily basis.

Often this is because shareholders make the mistake of thinking their interests will be automatically protected, that their shareholding is too small to require an agreement or that they have such a good relationship with the company and other shareholders, they see it as an unnecessary expense.

The reality is tailored Shareholder Agreements are one of the most simple and cost effective ways shareholders can protect themselves and ensure the provisions they want included in their association with an organisation and each other are indeed included.

By not having a tailored shareholder agreement, you could be facing tens of thousands in legal, accounting and valuation expenses down the track to fight for what you have worked so hard for.

The cost of a shareholder agreement is a minute fraction of the costs of a dispute when you don’t have one, not to mention the time, emotional and stress cost.

Common mistakes in shareholder agreements

Common issues we see include inadequate procedures in place to force a buyout of a rogue shareholder, a lack of share valuation mechanisms should a shareholder choose to exit and inadequate mechanisms in place for Director appointments and decision-making.

Key clauses you should always consider when preparing your shareholder agreement include:

  • Entry and exit of shareholders
  • Valuation of shares in the Company
  • Funding of the Company
  • Composition of the board of directors and board meeting procedures
  • Determining which key decisions for operation of the Company will be made by ordinary resolution, special resolution or unanimous resolution
  • Drag and tag along clauses
  • Death or TPD of a shareholder
  • Restraints of Trade

Why I should have a tailored shareholders agreement instead of an off the shelf agreement?

When a Company is incorporated, the relationship between the Company and its shareholders and directors will primarily be governed by its constitution and the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).

If a company does not have a constitution it will be governed by the replaceable rules in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

As a rule, most constitutions are produced for ‘shelf companies’ with only standard provisions and the replaceable rules only contain very basic methods for dealing with the operation of a Company and may not accurately reflect the features shareholders would like to have in place.

Tailored Shareholder Agreements provide a simple mechanism for shareholders to drive changes in the operation of the Company without needing to enter into a number of variations of the constitution of the Company.

If these matters are not thoroughly discussed and an agreement reached by shareholders, the potential for costly and time consuming disputes is greatly increased.

What should we consider before we begin?

I strongly encourage shareholders to openly discuss key issues to reach consensus on how their company will operate now and into the future.

To assist with this conversation, we have developed a free questionnaire, which allows everyone to thoroughly consider the key questions around your Shareholder Agreement.

This allows us to prepare bespoke Shareholder Agreements quickly and efficiently for a Company for a fraction of the cost of having the documents prepared through long, involved and costly meetings with lawyers. Click here to receive a copy of our free Shareholder Agreement Questionnaire.

Legally defining a de facto relationship in Australia

Legally defining a de facto relationship in Australia

Home » Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Legally defining a de facto relationship in Australia

Author: Robert Lamb

}

4 min read

3 Jun 2019

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • There is no one legal definition of what constitutes a de facto relationship in Australia
  • The commonly known 'two year mark' is a misconception as is not set in stone when it comes to de facto relationships, legally speaking
  • Each case is different and the outcome can depend on what you are trying to legally achieve or what are the legal circumstances.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

It is a common misconception that a de facto relationship is only considered to have legally binding consequences in terms of property rights if a couple have been living together for two or more years.

The fact is there is no single legally binding definition of a de facto relationship in Australia.

In Queensland alone, there are at least 40 pieces of legislation that define a de facto relationship in legal terms.

Being a de facto partner or spouse can give rise to many legal rights and obligations, including a de facto spouse potentially having the right to make a claim under a will or to apply for property settlement on separation.

The definition of whether a person is in a de facto relationship or not, is actually determined on the specific circumstances of each case and the piece of legislation you are attempting to rely upon to assert or deny that spousal relationship.

Let me explain

For example, under the Family Law Act, which governs how property and children are considered if a couple who are not married separate, the court will decide on a case-by-case basis if a legal de facto relationship exists.

Under the Act, the court must consider the following:

  • The duration of the relationship
  • The nature and extent of common residence
  • Whether a sexual relationship exists
  • The degree of financial dependence or independence, and any arrangements of financial support
  • The ownerships, use and acquisition of property
  • The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
  • Whether the relationship was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship
  • The care and support of children
  • The reputation and public aspects of the relationship

While there is a two year timeframe required in some circumstances for a relationship to be deemed a de facto relationship, there are instances where a two year timeframe is not required.

This includes when there is a child of the relationship or one partner has made substantial contributions and it would be a serious injustice for the court not to deal with the matter.

The definition of a de facto partner in the Queensland Acts Interpretations Act (a piece of legislation that governs how other pieces of legislation in Queensland are interpreted) is quite similar.

In interpreting the meaning of a de facto spouse in Queensland Legislation, consideration should be given to

  • The nature and extent of common residence
  • The length of the relationship
  • Whether or not a sexual relationship exists or existed
  • The degree of financial dependence or independence, and any arrangement for financial support
  • Their ownership, use and acquisition of property
  • The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life, including the care and support of each other
  • The care and support of children
  • The performance of household tasks
  • The reputation and public aspects of their relationship

Importantly, under this definition there is no minimum timeframe. Many Acts in Queensland rely on this definition when determining if a de facto relationship exists or not.

It all changes when it comes to other areas of law

Despite all of this, some pieces of legislation still require a timeframe. For example, in order to make a claim under a will, the person making the claim must have been the de facto spouse of the deceased for at least two years.

Often taxation acts will also require a minimum timeframe of two years for de facto spouses to be eligible for concession.

There are also circumstances where a de facto spouse does not require a minimum time for legal protection. De-facto spouses are afforded the protection under the Domestic Violence and Child Protection Act, without needing to be together for two years. The Anti-Discrimination Act also does not require a minimum timeframe for a finding that you are in a de facto relationship.

However, each case is different and the outcome can depend on what you are trying to legally achieve or what are the legal circumstances.

If you are in doubt whether or not you are or were in a de-facto relationship I strongly suggest you seek legal advice to gain certainty and clarity around your rights, options and obligations.