Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2024] FCA 136 File number(s): NSD 917 of 2022
Judgment of: ABRAHAM J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2024
Date of publication of reasons: 23 February 2024
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to set aside subpoenas – objection to the grant of leave to issue further subpoenas – where recipients of subpoenas are said to be journalist's confidential sources – where there exists a court order upholding claim of journalist privilege under s 126K of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether subpoenas are an abuse of process – whether subpoenas serve a legitimate forensic purpose HELD – application to set aside subpoenas granted – leave to issue further subpoenas is refused
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 126K, 131A Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 29A Evidence Act 1906 (WA) ss 20G, 20I-20M
Cases cited: AEI Insurance Group Pty Ltd v Martin [2023] FCA 914 Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2023] FCA 1623 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Boase v Axis International Management Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] WASC 498 Chief Executive Officer of Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre v TAB Limited [2016] FCA 122 Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 61 GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 97 ALJR 857 Hamilton v Oades [1989] HCA 21; (1989) 166 CLR 486 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock [2013] WASC 290 Hooke v Bux Global Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 836 Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 5) [2018] WASC 360 Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] WASC 415 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco [1988] HCA 54; (1988) 165 CLR 346 Kizon v Palmer [1997] FCA 622; (1997) 77 FCR 261 Madafferi v The Age Company Ltd [2015] VSC 687; (2015) 50 VR 492 McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233 Murdoch v Private Media Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1275 P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 413; (2009) 255 ALR 466 Pivotel Satellite Pty Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited [2010] FCA 121 PNJ v The Queen [2009] HCA 6; (2009) 252 ALR 612 Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] HCA 66; (1995) 184 CLR 19 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 27) [2022] FCA 79 Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 3) [2020] FCA 2 Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251 Russell v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2023] FCA 1223 Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Fairfax Media Publication Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 185 Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 11) [2006] FCA 174 UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; (2018) 265 CLR 77 Wong v Sklavos [2014] FCAFC 120; (2014) 319 ALR 378 Wran v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1984] 3 NSWLR 241
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate