The first plaintiff, Kurraba Group Pty Ltd (Kurraba) is a Sydney-based real estate development firm led by the second plaintiff, Kurraba CEO, Nicholas Smith. Kurraba lodged a development application to redevelop 100 Botany Road, Alexandria (the DA). The site includes premises at Wyndham Street, Alexandria.

The owner of the real property to be developed and company responsible for the development is Botany Road Development Pty Ltd (BRD). The second plaintiff is the sole director and shareholder of BRD.

In June 2024, Kurraba announced its intention to lodge the DA. Around the same time, the Wyndham Street property was listed for short-term rental. The defendant, Michael Williams, inquired about leasing the property and was informed of the planned redevelopment. The defendant, through his company, Glexia Pty Ltd, subsequently entered a six-month lease for the premises.

With two months left on the lease, the defendant sent the second plaintiff a text claiming the development would disrupt his business and breach various laws and stated his intention to oppose the DA. At a meeting on 11 November 2024, the defendant demanded $50,000 from the plaintiffs to remove his objections to the DA, citing his past success with disputes against other large corporations. Smith refused the demand.

Between November 2024 and March 2025, the defendant:

• submitted 64 pages of submissions opposing the DA;
• posted a one-star Google review of Kurraba;
• made public oral submissions to the planning committee considering the DA containing allegations about the plaintiffs; and
• created a website, “Kurraba Group Exposed” (Website), publishing a suite of serious allegations against both plaintiffs, which accuse the plaintiffs of which (amongst other things) failed past ventures, deceptive rebranding, questionable qualifications, broken promises, financial desperation, legal intimidation of critics, conflicts of interest and regulatory dodges.

Additionally, the defendant published the second plaintiff's private wedding photographs without his consent and in a manner that sought to imply that the images depicted moral delinquency and drunkenness, rather than the sanctity of marriage.

On 2 October 2025, the plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the Defamation List of the District Court of New South Wales and made an application on an ex parte basis seeking interlocutory orders for the torts of defamation and serious invasion of privacy (in the case of the second plaintiff) and intimidation, to bring an end to the "campaign of extortion" by the defendant.

Turning to the tort of privacy, Clause 7 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act relevantly provides that an individual (the plaintiff) has a cause of action in tort against another person (the defendant) if:

• the defendant intruded on the plaintiff's seclusion and/ or misused their personal information;
• a person in the position of the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy;
• the invasion was intentional or reckless;
• the invasion was serious; and
• the public interest in protecting the plaintiff’s privacy outweighs any countervailing public interest.

Justice Gibson found that the conduct of the defendant was such that there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the tort of privacy concerning the second plaintiff (as well as the tort of intimidation and the tort of defamation).

Importantly, Justice Gibson recognised at [17], that one of the difficulties facing the court when describing the conduct, the subject of a claim for serious invasions of privacy is that merely repeating the false allegations in a judgment can increase the damage. Therefore, Her Honour aimed to limit her comments on the subject matter that formed the basis of the claim.

With that in mind, in her reasons, Her Honour noted at [26]:

• that the affidavit of Mr Micallef sets out the misuse of the second plaintiff's private wedding photographs which were never intended to be made public;
• that weddings were intended to be “as private as was possible” (as recognised by Lindsay J at [66] in Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWHC 786);
• the second plaintiff and his wife were not public figures and had no intention of publishing their wedding photographs to any media or other mass publication organisation; and
• the defendant misused the wedding photographs by seeking to portray that what they depicted indicated "moral delinquency and drunkenness as opposed to the sanctity of marriage and the ceremonial proceedings attendant there upon".

Her Honour found that the balance of convenience clearly favours the plaintiffs as there is no evidence of any other legitimate reason for the defendant's conduct. Her Honour also refused to find that the journalism exceptions applied, commenting that "[t]he defendant’s conduct is not that of journalistic-style investigation, but of extortion".

Her Honour made the orders sought by the plaintiffs, which included amongst other orders:

1. An injunction restraining the defendant from publishing any document (including, without limitation, by way of posting articles on the Internet, posting videos on the Internet, sending a text message, or sending an email referring to or identifying Mr Smith, or the development;
2. An injunction requiring the defendant, within two days of the order, to take all steps to remove from the Internet and/or any social media platform any website, article, advertisement, or document referring to or identifying Mr Smith, Kurraba or the development;
3. An injunction restraining the defendant from repeating or continuing to publish a website, article, advertisement, or document referring to or identifying Mr Smith, Kurraba, or the development; and
4. An injunction restraining the defendant from inciting, encouraging or otherwise suggesting to any person that such person engage in conduct from which the defendant is, by these orders, restrained.

Kurraba v Williams marks a legal milestone as the first published judgment applying the new statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy under the Privacy Act.

The Court granted of interlocutory relief and indicated that the plaintiffs had a serious case to be tried under the new tort provisions.

This decision opens the door for more individuals and companies to pursue privacy claims. Please reach out to our Privacy & Data team if you would like assistance with building a tailored privacy framework for your organisation.