Background
US1 Critical Minerals Limited, formerly Gladiator Resources Limited, sued Andrew John Price over social-media posts that allegedly portrayed the ASX-listed mining company as fraudulent or illegitimate, implicated it and its officers in misconduct, suggested financial distress, and made other adverse claims. US1 alleged false or misleading conduct under ss 1041E and 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), as well as injurious falsehood.
Pending trial, US1 sought an injunction preventing Price from publishing statements concerning the proceeding, its subject matter, the company and its affairs, its directors and officers, chair Matthew Boysen and his family, and other participants in the case. It also sought removal of covered posts published after 26 June 2025 and an expedited, separate determination of its claim for final injunctive relief.
The Court’s Holding
Abraham J dismissed the interlocutory application. The Court found that US1 had established a prima facie case concerning at least some pleaded posts: the evidence was sufficient at the interlocutory stage to support allegations of false or misleading conduct and injurious falsehood, including a prima facie inference of malice and likely harm. That finding, however, did not establish an entitlement to the sweeping restraint requested.
The proposed orders extended far beyond the company-focused claims and the final injunction sought in the proceeding. Much of US1’s evidence concerned personal, offensive or antagonistic posts about Boysen and his family, while only a limited number of the identified post-commencement publications resembled the pleaded company-related posts. The evidence did not justify restraints covering such a broad group of people and subjects, nor did it establish improper pressure or a real risk of interference with the administration of justice sufficient to support the orders. Because US1 failed to establish a factual basis for relief in the terms sought, the Court did not need to decide the balance of convenience.
The Court also refused to separate and expedite the claim for final injunctive relief. Questions of harm overlapped with the damages case, witnesses might otherwise have to testify and face cross-examination twice, and the proposed division would not promote efficient resolution. The proceeding was to continue in the ordinary course.
Key Takeaways
- Establishing a prima facie underlying claim does not itself justify an interim injunction; the evidence must support the precise scope of the restraint sought.
- Injurious falsehood protects commercial and proprietary interests, so it was not an appropriate vehicle for broadly restraining personal attacks on a company officer and his family.
- Offensive, mocking or antagonistic commentary about litigation does not necessarily establish improper interference with the administration of justice, particularly where contempt or threatened contempt is expressly disavowed.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the need to tailor interlocutory restraints closely to pleaded causes of action, proven risks and the final relief sought. Even where online publications support a prima facie case and may be distasteful or damaging, a court will not impose a broad prohibition covering unrelated people, personal commentary and accurate discussion of public court orders without a sufficient evidentiary and legal foundation.
The judgment was not an endorsement of Price’s conduct. Abraham J cautioned that Price should take no comfort from the result: further posts could strengthen US1’s evidence concerning intention and malice and would be assessed in light of the concerns exposed by the application.