Nehme v The Art Scene Pty Ltd (ACN 001 966 472) [2026] NSWDC 315 (Link to Caselaw).
David Rolph has kindly drawn attention to a development in relation to the statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy. In the above matter, Dicker SC DCJ was satisfied that the District Court had jurisdiction to grant an ex parte interim injunction based on the tort.
The plaintiff alleged that she established a Canva account on which she stored personal documents, as well as work-related documents.
The court noted that there are three requirements. First, a plaintiff seeking an interim injunction must establish a serious question to be tried, or a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is, there is a probability that at the trial of the action, the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief. However, it is not necessary to establish that it is more probable than not that the plaintiff will succeed a trial. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success, to justify, in the circumstances of the case, the preservation of the status quo. The Court then proceeds to the balance of convenience question. The question is whether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer, if the interim injunction were refused, outweighs or is outweighed by that which the defendant would suffer if an injunction is granted, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy for such inconvenience or injury. Finally the Court considers discretionary reasons. ([21] – [25]).
Orders were made in accordance with the plaintiff’s summons.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2577]