Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats [2001] 208 CLF 199
No breach of privacy in relation to footage of meat production processes
Facts
The respondent operated a possum meat processing plant in Tasmania. It sought an injunction to prevent the appellant from broadcasting footage of its meat production processes. The respondent alleged that the footage had been unlawfully obtained by animal rights activists.
Issue
The key issue to be resolved by the High Court of Australia was whether footage taken on private property was private and confidential. The respondent argued that broadcast of the footage would cause it financial harm and would be a breach of privacy. Due to the unconscionability of the how the footage was obtained, the respondent argued that it should be restrained from broadcast. The appellant argued that there was no principle in Australian law which prevented in broadcasting the footage, irrespective of how it came into its possession.
Decision/Outcome
The majority of the Court declined the respondent’s application for injunctive relief. The mere fact that the activities occurred on private property did not render them a “private act.” Protection derives from a combination of the characteristics of the property, nature of the act and the disposition of the property owner. Furthermore, the fact that the footage was obtained improperly did not taint the use or broadcast of the footage by the respondent. Whilst the Court declined to recognise a cause of action for breach of privacy in Australia independent of other laws such as defamation or nuisance, it nevertheless suggested that it may be receptive to arguments that a right to privacy for natural persons could be recognised in future.
265 words
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary broadly describes the High Court of Australia’s decision in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 (note: the citation in the heading contains a typographical error — ‘CLF’ should read ‘CLR’). The legal principles described remain an accurate summary of that decision.
Readers should be aware of the broader context. Australian law still does not recognise a general tort of privacy at common law, and subsequent Australian cases and law reform inquiries have not resolved this position definitively. The Australian Law Reform Commission has, over the years, recommended the introduction of a statutory cause of action for serious invasion of privacy, but as of the time of writing no federal legislation giving effect to such a recommendation has been enacted. Some Australian states have undertaken separate reviews. This article is therefore still broadly accurate as a statement of the law as it stood in 2001, but students should note that the area remains unsettled and actively debated in Australia.
This is an Australian authority and has no direct binding effect in England and Wales. English and Welsh students should treat it as persuasive comparative material only, particularly in discussions about whether a general tort of privacy might be recognised at common law. In the UK context, privacy interests are now primarily addressed through the Human Rights Act 1998, the law of confidence as developed in cases such as Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, and misuse of private information as a distinct cause of action.
