03 9070 9810

Urgent Privacy Injunctions

Court orders to stop publication of private information or restrain ongoing surveillance. Same-day and after-hours availability. Contact us now for urgent assistance.

Book a Confidential Assessment

Max file size: 20MB

When Hours Matter

An urgent privacy injunction is a court order that compels a person to stop what they are doing or refrain from doing what they have threatened. Under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), courts have express power to grant injunctive relief to restrain a serious invasion of privacy. Once private information is published, the harm is often irreversible. The same is true of continuing surveillance. The remedy must be fast or it is no remedy at all.

Same-Day Preparation

Where the facts support it, we prepare and file injunction applications on the day of instruction. Privacy matters are inherently time-sensitive. Delay can render the application moot.

After-Hours Availability

Threats to publish private images or information do not observe business hours. We are available outside standard hours for genuine emergencies requiring immediate court intervention.

Ex Parte Applications

Where giving notice to the other party would defeat the purpose of the injunction (for example, by prompting immediate publication), we apply to the court without notice to the respondent.

Federal and State Courts

We file in the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), and in State and Territory Supreme Courts, depending on which forum is most appropriate and accessible for the circumstances.

Intrusion and Publication Claims

Injunctions are available to restrain both pathways of the statutory tort: intrusion upon seclusion (such as ongoing surveillance or tracking) and misuse of personal information (such as threatened publication).

Confidential Proceedings

We routinely seek suppression and non-publication orders to protect the plaintiff's identity and the content of private material. The point of the proceeding is to prevent disclosure, not to create another forum for it.

How Urgent Privacy Injunctions Work

The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy, which commenced on 10 June 2025, gives Australian courts an express statutory basis to grant injunctions restraining invasions of privacy. This is new. Before this legislation, there was no general civil cause of action for invasion of privacy in Australia, and no reliable basis on which to seek injunctive relief.

Lawyer working on a laptop

Stopping Publication of Private Information

If someone is threatening to publish your private images, health records, financial information, or other personal material, you may be entitled to a court order restraining that publication before it occurs. Under clause 9 of Schedule 2, a court may grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain conduct that constitutes or would constitute a serious invasion of privacy. This is the most time-critical scenario we deal with. Once intimate images are posted online, or once private medical or financial information is circulated, the damage compounds with every hour. Copies proliferate. Screenshots are taken. The information cannot be retrieved. The application is supported by affidavit evidence setting out the threat, the nature of the private information, the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy, and the urgency. Where appropriate, we seek orders on an ex parte basis, meaning the court hears the application without the respondent being present. This is reserved for cases where giving notice would itself cause the very harm the injunction is intended to prevent. The court must have particular regard to the public interest in the publication of information when deciding whether to grant the injunction. This means the application must address public interest directly and demonstrate that the plaintiff's privacy interest outweighs any countervailing interest in publication. In most cases involving intimate images, private health records, or personal financial information, this balance favours the plaintiff.

Legal documents and gavel

Restraining Ongoing Surveillance

Injunctions are not limited to publication cases. If you are subject to continuing surveillance, tracking, or monitoring, an interlocutory injunction can order the respondent to cease that conduct immediately. Common scenarios include a former partner tracking your location through a shared device or hidden application, a neighbour who has directed CCTV cameras at the private areas of your property, a landlord who has failed to disclose or remove surveillance devices in a rental property, and an employer conducting covert monitoring that goes beyond what is lawful or proportionate. State surveillance legislation in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland creates criminal offences for certain types of surveillance, but it does not provide a civil remedy. You cannot sue under the Surveillance Devices Act. The federal statutory tort fills that gap. It provides the basis for a court order requiring the respondent to stop the surveillance, remove the device, or delete the recordings. A breach of state surveillance laws may strengthen the application by demonstrating that the conduct was unlawful. The application must establish that the invasion is serious, that it was intentional or reckless, and that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. The court will also consider the balance of convenience and whether damages would be an adequate remedy. In cases of continuing intrusion upon seclusion, damages are rarely adequate because the harm is ongoing.

Privacy protection symbol

What Happens After the Injunction Is Granted

An interlocutory injunction is an interim order. It preserves the position until the matter can be heard at trial or resolved by agreement. It is not the final word. Once the injunction is in place, the respondent is bound by it and faces contempt of court proceedings if they breach it. We serve the order personally where possible and, in publication cases, also serve it on any platform or intermediary hosting the material. The matter then proceeds in one of several directions. The respondent may agree to a permanent undertaking or consent order, resolving the matter without a trial. The respondent may file a defence and the matter proceeds to a hearing on the merits. Or the parties may reach a negotiated settlement, potentially including an apology (which under clause 13 of Schedule 2 does not constitute an admission of fault or liability), deletion of material, undertakings as to future conduct, and compensation. We also act for individuals who wish to pursue compensation and damages alongside the injunction. The statutory tort allows the court to award damages for non-economic loss (capped at $500,000, indexed annually) and, in exceptional cases, exemplary damages. These claims are set out in detail on our compensation and damages page. If the subject matter also involves reputational harm, the claim may overlap with defamation. Unlike defamation, truth is not a defence to the statutory tort. We work closely with defamation practitioners at defamationlawyer.au where both causes of action arise from the same conduct.

Confidential Initial Assessment

Confidential Initial Assessment

A fixed-fee ($770) assessment of your matter. We review the facts, advise whether the statutory tort applies, and set out your options, including whether urgent injunctive relief is warranted.

Learn More
Pre-Action Demand Letters

Pre-Action Demand Letters

A formal demand on the respondent to cease the invasion, delete material, and undertake not to repeat the conduct. Fixed fee ($990). Often resolves the matter without court proceedings.

Learn More
Intimate Images and Doxxing

Intimate Images and Doxxing

Non-consensual sharing of intimate images and publication of identifying personal details (doxxing) are among the most common grounds for urgent injunctive relief under the statutory tort.

Learn More
Surveillance and Recording Claims

Surveillance and Recording Claims

Hidden cameras, covert recordings, GPS tracking, and directed CCTV. The statutory tort provides the civil remedy that state surveillance legislation does not.

Learn More
Misuse of Private Information

Misuse of Private Information

Disclosure of health records, financial information, personal correspondence, or other private material without consent. Truth is not a defence.

Learn More
Compensation and Damages

Compensation and Damages

Court-awarded damages for non-economic loss, capped at $500,000, plus exemplary damages in exceptional cases. No proof of financial loss is required.

Learn More

Frequently Asked Questions About Urgent Privacy Injunctions

It depends on the circumstances, the court's availability, and the strength of the evidence. In genuinely urgent cases, particularly where publication is imminent, courts can hear applications at short notice, including on the same day the application is filed. Ex parte applications (where the court hears the matter without notice to the respondent) are available where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. We do not guarantee specific timeframes because each matter turns on its own facts and the court's schedule. What we can say is that we treat urgent matters as urgent, including outside business hours.

An ex parte injunction is a court order made without the respondent being given prior notice of the application. It is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where the urgency is such that giving notice would itself cause the harm the injunction is meant to prevent. For example, if a person has threatened to publish intimate images within hours, notifying them of the application may prompt them to publish immediately. Ex parte orders are temporary. The court will list the matter for a return date, usually within days, at which the respondent can appear and argue against the continuation of the order.

The application is supported by affidavit evidence from the plaintiff. At a minimum, you need to establish the nature of the private information or the conduct in question, the threat of publication or the fact of ongoing surveillance, your reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, that the invasion is or would be serious, that the respondent's conduct is intentional or reckless, and the urgency (why the matter cannot wait for a final hearing). Documentary evidence is important. Screenshots of threats, photographs of surveillance devices, records of tracking activity, and communications from the respondent are all relevant. We assist you in preparing the affidavit and identifying the evidence required.

Yes. Truth is not a defence to the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988. This is a fundamental difference from defamation law, where truth (or substantial truth) is a complete defence. The statutory tort protects privacy, not reputation. If someone is threatening to publish your private health records, financial information, or intimate images, the fact that the information is accurate does not entitle them to publish it. The court will consider the public interest in publication, but in the vast majority of cases involving genuinely private personal information, the balance favours restraint.

No. The statutory tort is actionable per se, meaning no proof of damage is required. You do not need to demonstrate financial loss, psychiatric injury, or any other form of quantifiable harm to obtain an injunction or to succeed in a claim for damages. The invasion of privacy itself is the wrong. This is an important feature of the legislation. Many invasions of privacy cause distress, anxiety, and humiliation that are difficult to quantify in financial terms. The tort recognises that the invasion is harmful in its own right.

The cost depends on the complexity and urgency of the matter. Injunction applications involve preparation of affidavit evidence, drafting of the application and proposed orders, filing, and attendance at the hearing. We provide a cost estimate after an initial assessment of the facts. We offer a fixed-fee confidential initial assessment ($770) for clients who need advice on whether an injunction is the appropriate course. For matters that are genuinely urgent, we can often begin work immediately and provide a cost estimate concurrently. Court filing fees are payable separately and vary by jurisdiction.

The statutory tort under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 is a Commonwealth statute. Proceedings can be commenced in the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), or in State and Territory Supreme Courts exercising federal jurisdiction. The choice of forum depends on factors including the location of the parties, the urgency of the application, and the court's capacity to hear the matter at short notice. In Melbourne, we typically file in the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria District Registry) or the Supreme Court of Victoria. In Sydney, we file in the Federal Court (New South Wales District Registry) or the Supreme Court of New South Wales. We act for clients across Australia.

Yes. An interlocutory injunction is not a final order. If the order is made ex parte, the court will list the matter for a return date at which the respondent can appear and argue that the order should be dissolved or varied. The respondent may argue that there is no serious question to be tried, that the balance of convenience does not favour the injunction, that damages would be an adequate remedy, or that the public interest in publication outweighs the plaintiff's privacy interest. The respondent may also seek to rely on statutory defenses (such as consent, lawful authority, or necessity) or to establish that an exemption applies (such as the journalist exemption). These arguments are heard and determined at the return date or, if the matter is complex, at trial.

An injunction can still be sought to prevent further publication, to require the removal of material already published, and to restrain the respondent from distributing or sharing the material further. The court can also order the respondent to take steps to remove or de-index published material. In addition to injunctive relief, you may pursue a claim for compensation and damages for the invasion that has already occurred. The limitation period is one year from the date you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of the invasion, or three years from the date the invasion occurred, whichever is earlier. The clock is ticking. You may have as little as 12 months to act.

For invasions by APP entities (organisations and government agencies covered by the Australian Privacy Principles), you may lodge a complaint with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). This pathway is free and does not require a lawyer. However, it has significant limitations: it does not cover conduct by individuals or small businesses, the process is slow, and the outcomes are modest compared with court proceedings. It does not provide for injunctive relief, exemplary damages, or the range of remedies available under the statutory tort. For invasions by individuals, small businesses, or entities not covered by the APPs, the statutory tort under Schedule 2 is the only civil remedy. A pre-action demand letter is often an effective first step before commencing court proceedings and may resolve the matter without the need for an injunction. The information provided in this article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek specific legal advice regarding your circumstances.
Call