Background
Three professional athletes with close personal relationships communicated for eight years via a private group chat accessible only to them. One plaintiff (AB) had a four-year romantic relationship with the second defendant (GH), an individual with significant social media influence. During and after their relationship, GH accessed AB’s old mobile phone without authorization, photographed portions of the group chat, and retained the phone after their relationship ended in late 2025.
In April 2026, GH provided the photographs and phone access to Marnie Vinall, an award-winning sports journalist employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Vinall used this information to investigate a story for publication, obtaining additional photographs of the messages and contacting the plaintiffs, sporting clubs, and the sport’s governing body for responses. The messages, exchanged in 2024, contained crude banter and personal insults never intended for public disclosure.
The plaintiffs commenced proceedings on 18 June 2026 seeking interlocutory injunctions and suppression orders to prevent publication. A Duty Judge granted temporary restraining orders and suppression orders until 23 June 2026. The matter proceeded to full hearing before McGrath J.
The Court’s Holding
Justice McGrath found the plaintiffs had established a very strong prima facie case for breach of confidence. The court held that the group chat messages possessed the necessary quality of confidence—they were private communications exchanged only between close friends over many years, never disseminated to third parties. The information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; the defendants’ use and disclosure of the stolen information without authorization breached that confidence.
The court rejected the suggestion that the messages constituted “trivial tittle-tattle” exempt from protection. Although crude in tone, the messages did not disclose any iniquity (wrongdoing) by the plaintiffs and were highly context-dependent. The court found irreparable harm would result from publication: the messages would be sensationalized and decontextualised, potentially causing serious damage to the plaintiffs’ reputations, professional standing, and financial interests, particularly for one plaintiff who held high-profile ambassador roles.
Applying the balance of convenience test, McGrath J held that the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, combined with the inadequacy of damages to remedy reputational harm and the risk of losing the practical benefit of any final judgment if publication occurred first, heavily favored granting the interlocutory injunction. The court also made suppression and non-publication orders to protect the plaintiffs’ identities and prevent prejudice to the administration of justice, reasoning that victims of confidentiality breaches would be deterred from seeking judicial relief if publicity would cause greater harm than the breach itself.
Key Takeaways
- Private text messages in an intimate group chat constitute confidential information deserving of equitable protection, even if crude or personal in tone
- Unauthorized access to private messages by an ex-partner, retained possession of the device, and provision to media outlets constitute clear breaches of confidence
- Major broadcasters like the ABC are not exempt from breach of confidence principles and must respect confidentiality rights
- Courts will grant interlocutory injunctions where reputational harm from publication would be irreversible and damages an inadequate remedy
- Suppression orders are appropriate to protect both the confidential information and the identities of parties where publication would undermine public confidence in the justice system
Why It Matters
This decision strengthens privacy protections for private communications between friends and intimates, particularly in the digital age. It establishes that even powerful media organizations cannot escape breach of confidence liability by publishing stolen private messages, and that courts will intervene pre-publication to prevent irreversible reputational harm. The decision recognizes that damages are an inadequate remedy for publication of decontextualized personal communications, especially for public figures whose professional roles depend on reputation.
The judgment also signals the courts’ concern that access to judicial remedies should not be hollow—if publication causes greater harm than the confidentiality breach itself, victims would be deterred from seeking legal protection. By granting suppression orders that protect identities and proceedings details, the court balanced the public’s interest in open justice against the legitimate privacy interests of individuals victimized by confidentiality breaches, particularly where the confidential information itself contains no matter of genuine public concern.