Australian common law right to privacy?

HL
HHG Legal Group

Contributor

HHG Legal Group has been serving Western Australians for over 100 years. With a large team across five offices, we offer top-notch legal advice and representation, exceeding expectations for all clients.
There is limited recourse to protect our privacy rights at common law, because there is no tort for invasion of privacy.
Australia Privacy
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Outside the statutory regime, Australians have limited recourse to protect their privacy rights at common law. This is because, unlike other common law countries, our Courts have not developed a tort of invasion of privacy. For example, unlike the United States, Australia does not have any express common law cause of action with respect to:

  1. intrusion upon a person's seclusion or solitude, or into his/her private affairs;
  2. public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about a person;
  3. publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; or
  4. appropriation, for the perpetrator's advantage, of a person's name or likeness.

Similarly, Australia does not recognise the extended concept of breach of confidence as accepted in the United Kingdom in relation to privacy rights.

However, the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 overturned the long-standing position in Australia that the common law provided no protection for personal privacy. This understanding was based on comments made obiter in the High Court case of Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479. Lenah found the position adopted in Victoria Park to be incorrect and that there was no impediment preventing Australian Courts from creating a cause of action for invasions of privacy. Indeed, Callinan J asserted:

It seems to me that, having regard to current conditions in this country, and developments of the law in other common law jurisdictions, the time is ripe for consideration whether a tort of invasion of privacy should be recognised in this country, or whether the legislatures should be left to determine whether provisions for a remedy for it should be made.

Since Lenah, only two lower Courts have recognised a tort of invasion of privacy: Gross v Purvis [2003] QDC 151 in the District Court of Queensland and Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] VCC 281 in the Country Court of Victoria. It remains unclear the likely direction of the future development of the Australian common law with respect to privacy rights.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More