As we kick off 2025, Legal Insight has pulled together the most noteworthy Australian court decisions and proceedings of 2024.
Taking out the top spot is the defamation trial Bruce Lehrmann brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and her employer Network 10. Justice Michael Lee himself called it an “omnishambles of a case”, as the dispute stirred up swirling commentary that dominated the headlines.
Despite the notoriety that kept Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd firmly in the news cycle, there were plenty of significant legal developments and landmark decisions in 2024. Read on for a summary of the 10 most interesting legal cases of 2024 …
1. Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 369
In 2023, Bruce Lehrmann sued Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over commentary about Brittany Higgins’ sexual assault allegations aired on The Project in 2021. Lehrmann claimed the broadcast damaged his reputation, even though he wasn’t explicitly named.
Network Ten relied on defences of substantial truth and qualified privilege. The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) upheld the substantial truth defence (section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (Defamation Act)) but rejected the qualified privilege defence (section 30 of the Defamation Act). The FCA determined that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Higgins.
Justice Michael Lee found issues with all of the parties’ cases. Despite ruling in favour of Network 10, some of its arguments failed, particularly regarding the justification defence. The case underscores the complexity of defamation law and the ethical responsibilities of media entities.
The case also highlights the balance between protecting reputations and ensuring freedom of expression. Proving defamation is challenging. In 2021, Australian states introduced a “serious harm” criterion, requiring plaintiffs to show significant damage to their reputation as a threshold question prior to commencement of proceedings.
Justice Michael Lee delivered his judgment in Lehrmann v Network 10 Pty Ltd on 15 April 2024. His Honour noted that “[h]aving escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat”.
2. Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd v Lau [2024] TASSC 49
In 2020, the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) in Tasmania opened an exhibition called the “Ladies Lounge”. The concept was to provide a “flipped universe” where women could experience exclusivity and a reversal of power dynamics, drawing attention to gender inequalities.
The lounge was restricted to individuals identifying as female. On April 1, 2023, Lau was denied entry to the lounge because he is male. He filed a complaint with Equal Opportunity Tasmania, claiming gender discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) (Anti-Discrimination Act).
Initially, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) found the denial of entry to Lau was direct discrimination, in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act. It ordered MONA to stop excluding males from the Ladies Lounge. MONA appealed the decision on the basis of several errors. MONA asserted that the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal mischaracterised the purpose of the Ladies Lounge and failed to consider the current disadvantages faced by women.
Section 26 of the Anti-Discrimination Act provides that a person may discriminate in any program, plan or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute.
The Supreme Court of Tasmania found that the Lounge was intended to promote equal opportunity. Providing women with a space where they are advantaged countered the general societal disadvantage they experience. The correct approach that the Tribunal should have followed in making the determination under section 26 of the Act was:
- to ask whether the purpose of the Lounge was to promote equal opportunity (which, on the evidence, it was);
- next, to ask whether it was reasonable to believe equal opportunity can thereby be promoted (which, on the evidence, it was); and
- finally, to ask whether the group of people sought to be advantaged have a special need because of a prescribed attribute (the attribute being gender, and the special need being to have disadvantage redressed and addressed by having the Lounge open only to women and those who identify as women).
Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision was quashed.
3. Faruqi v Hanson [2024] FCA 1264
In November 2024, the FCA held that, in publishing a tweet that included telling Senator Mehreen Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan”, Senator Pauline Hanson had racially vilified Senator Faruqi on social media.
Justice Stewart found Senator Hanson had contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by publishing the offensive tweet directed towards Senator Faruqi, and he ordered Senator Hanson to delete the racist tweet and pay Senator Faruqi’s legal costs.
Section 18C prohibits racial vilification. It is unlawful for a person to do non-private acts that:
- are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group; and
- are done due to the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or people in the group.
This section has been the subject of debate regarding its interaction with the implied constitutional right to political communication. While this case is not employment-related, it demonstrates the scope and operation of section 18C.
4. Berejiklian v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2024] NSWCA 177
In 2023, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) found former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian and former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire had engaged in serious corrupt conduct.
Berejiklian challenged the 2023 ICAC decision, seeking to have the findings against her quashed or declared invalid. Specifically, the findings Berejiklian disputed were:
- Breaching public trust in 2016 and 2017 by supporting funding for the Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA) without disclosing her close relationship with Maguire when she was in a position of conflict of interest.
- Exercising her official functions in connection with ACTA funding influenced by her relationship with Maguire.
- Breaching public trust in 2018 by supporting funding for the Riverina Conservatorium of Music (RCM) without disclosing her relationship with Maguire, again when in a position of conflict of interest.
- Exercising her official functions in connection with RCM funding influenced by her relationship with Maguire.
- Failing to report her suspicion that Maguire was involved in corrupt activities.
Berejiklian argued that the Assistant Commissioner Ruth McColl was not authorised to make the decision. McColl continued to work on preparing the report after her term as Assistant Commissioner had ended. Berejiklian asserted the findings against her were invalid, contending that McColl acted beyond her power as a consultant. Berejiklian argued that the function of preparing such reports could only be delegated to a current Assistant Commissioner.
The ICAC maintained that McColl did not exceed her authority by continuing to prepare a draft report after her appointment as Assistant Commissioner ended. It argued that the statutory requirement is for the Commissioner to make final findings, opinions, and recommendations, even if others assist in drafting. The ICAC disputed Berejiklian’s claim of jurisdictional error, and maintained the final report was made by the Commission, not McColl.
In July 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSWCA) dismissed Berejiklian’s application to overturn the Commission’s findings of serious corrupt conduct. The NSWCA stated that its role was not to reassess the merits of the Commission’s findings but to review for jurisdictional errors and errors of law.
5. Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41
In November 2024, the High Court of Australia (HCA) unanimously allowed an appeal by the Ballarat Roman Catholic Diocese against a decision that the Diocese was vicariously liable for sexual assaults by a priest.
The definition of vicarious liability holds employers responsible for acts of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. The key issue here was whether vicarious liability is limited to employment relationships or could be found in relationships “akin to employment”. This would determine whether the Diocese was liable for the priest’s conduct.
In 2020, DP (the respondent) commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria (VSC) against the Diocese seeking damages in respect of psychological injuries from historical sexual assaults by Father Bryan Coffey, an assistant parish priest who had subsequently died.
The primary judge held the Diocese vicariously liable for the priest’s conduct. The reasons included that the priest’s role provided both the opportunity and occasion for the assaults. DP was awarded $230,000 in damages.
When the Diocese appealed, the Court of Appeal (VCA) upheld the decision of the VSC. The VCA rejected the Diocese’s argument that vicarious liability is confined to employment relationships.
The HCA overturned the VCA’s decision, finding vicarious liability at common law is confined to employment relationships and does not extend to relationships “akin to employment”.
6. Bunnings Group Ltd (Privacy) [2024] AICmr 230
In October 2024, an investigation initiated by Australian Privacy Commissioner, Carly Kind, found facial recognition systems operating in 62 Bunnings stores breached the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).
The novel technology collected personal and sensitive information in Victoria and New South Wales between January 2019 and November 2021. Bunnings was found to have breached the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) through its use of a facial recognition technology (FRT) system under section 52(1A) of the Privacy Act.
The Commissioner found Bunnings collected individuals’ personal and sensitive information through its FRT system in the NSW and Victorian stores without consent. The home improvement retail giant had failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the APPs. Bunnings also failed to include in its privacy policies information about the kinds of personal information it collected and held, and how it collected and held that personal information.
7. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd [2024] FCA 308 and [2024] FCA 1086
In 2024, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission won its first greenwashing civil penalty claim against Vanguard.
On 28 March 2024, the FCA found that Vanguard had contravened various sections of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) by making false or misleading representations in environmental, social and governance statements about the investments in a Vanguard fund.
On 25 September 2024, the FCA handed down a $12.9 million penalty against Vanguard. To date, this is the highest penalty handed down for greenwashing.
8. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Ltd [2024] FCA 1219
In October 2024, the FCA ordered Qantas to pay a total of $100 million in penalties for selling “ghost” flights.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) originally commenced the proceedings in August 2023. The ACCC alleged that Qantas contravened various provisions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
The FCA found that between 21 May 2021 and 26 August 2023 the airline made false or misleading representations in contravention of the ACL by offering and selling flight tickets after the company had already decided to cancel the flights (“ghost” flights).
After Qantas decided to cancel flights, it continued to display flight information to consumers who purchased tickets or made bookings for two or more days after the cancellations. The airline gave no indication to potential customers that it had already decided to cancel those flights, and failed to promptly notify existing ticket holders of its decisions to cancel.
The Federal Court ordered Qantas to pay $400,000 for the ACCC’s costs of the proceedings. Qantas also ordered to pay $20 million to consumers who had made bookings on flights that Qantas had already decided to cancel.
9. Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Ltd [2024] FCA 1216
In October 2024, the FCA made orders for statutory compensation for three test case workers who had been dismissed by Qantas when their roles were outsourced.
In an earlier decision, the FCA had found that a decision by Qantas to outsource its baggage handling was an unlawful adverse action, in breach of section 340(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
The FCA found the airline made the outsourcing decision for reasons that prevented the workers from:
- exercising their workplace rights to organise and engage in protected industrial action; and
- participating in enterprise bargaining.
For the alleged economic and non-economic loss suffered by employees due to Qantas’ contravention, the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) sought compensation under sections 545(1) and 525(2)(b) of the FW Act.
Although Justice Lee urged the TWU to consider a class action under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the TWU instead decided to pursue the “representative type” of procedure provided for in the FW Act.
The question of statutory compensation was determined by reference to three “test case” individuals. For compensation to be awarded under section 545 of the FW Act, the court must be satisfied that an appropriate causal connexion exists between the contravention and the loss claimed. Determining whether there is a causal connexion involves an assessment of what would or might have occurred but can no longer occur due to the contravention.
On the basis that outsourcing would have occurred, Justice Lee considered three counterfactual points raised by Qantas. Appropriate compensation was determined to be for the period of 12 months after each of the test case individuals ceased employment with the airline. Justice Lee proposed to relist the proceeding to hear any residual argument in relation to the final calculation of compensation.
10. R v Iervasi [2024] NSWSC 1116
In September 2024, Antonio (Tony) Iervasi received an 11-year sentence for running Australia’s largest Ponzi scheme, in relation to which he committed five offences under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Iervasi pleaded guilty to having engaged in dishonest conduct relating to financial products and for operating an unlicensed financial services business. The fraudulent activities spanned from 2010 to 2017, involving a Ponzi scheme operated through his business, Courtenay Trading. Iervasi’s business operated without the required Australian Financial Services Licence.
More than 585 investors deposited over $180 million in total, which the offender represented to them was being invested in foreign exchange and futures trading. However, less than 3% of the funds were ever actually invested, and amounts paid to investors each month, said to be returns from trading, were the investors’ own capital. The offender also used funds for his own business and for personal purposes.
An aggregate sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years was handed down.
Found this article interesting? Take a look back at the 9 Cases that Captivated the Legal Profession in 2020 and 7 Cases that Shocked the Nation in 2019.
For more content created by lawyers for lawyers, explore Westlaw Precision Australia to advise with confidence. Fast track the drafting process and discover Practical Law with up-to-date precedents that reflect current law and with practical expert commentary.
