By: Leah Mooney, Georgie Austin and Isabelle Ferrali

Introduction

Bondi Icebergs founder Maurice Terzini has commenced proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against Nine Entertainment and his former wife, Emma Addams, in what could be the first substantial case invoking the newly legislated tort of serious invasion of privacy.

According to the statement of claim, Terzini alleges that Addams disclosed private information to a journalist employed by Nine, which was subsequently broadcast on 60 Minutes and published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in June 2025. Terzini’s lawyers allege that Addams engaged in a serious invasion of his privacy by misuse of information.

The new privacy tort

Under the new privacy tort:

1. The defendant will have invaded the plaintiff’s privacy if they either intrude upon the plaintiff’s seclusion¹ or misuse information that relates to the plaintiff;²
2. A person in the position of the plaintiff would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances;³
3. The invasion of privacy was intentional or reckless;⁴
4. The invasion of privacy was serious; and
5. The public interest in the plaintiff’s privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest.⁵

What the court may consider

If the matter proceeds to trial, it is likely to provide important judicial guidance on the scope of the new statutory cause of action, particularly where private information is allegedly disclosed by a former spouse. The central issues for the court are likely to include whether Terzini was entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the invasion was sufficiently serious to justify relief. It is expected that arguments will focus on the subject matter of the text messages and information allegedly disclosed, as well as the status of the relationship between Addams and Terzini at the time of disclosure.

The court will also be required to balance the public interest in Terzini’s privacy against any countervailing public interest, including freedom of media and the public interest in reporting on matters of legitimate concern. Nine’s reports included allegations that Terzini protected his son, Sylvester Terzini, who was accused of sexual misconduct and violence between 2016 and 2023. It is said that Sylvester was employed at several of Terzini’s restaurants during this time. Lawyers for Nine and Addams are likely to focus on the fact that Terzini is a public figure and allegations of sexual misconduct against his son, Sylvester, are matters of public concern.

However, it is worthwhile noting that the information alleged to have been disclosed by Addams to Nine includes information relating to their finances and marital discord, which may be harder to establish as being in the public interest. Terzini’s lawyers may seek to draw a distinction between the matters relating to his son and the information relating to his marriage with Addams. As with the recent case involving previous Victorian Liberal MP Sam Groth and The Herald Sun, the key issue is whether there is a public interest in news organisations publishing private information.

In that case, the question was whether there was a public interest in The Herald Sun’s journalist, Stephen Drill, questioning whether Groth’s wife, Brittany Groth, was under 18 at the commencement of their sexual relationship and whether Groth, as her tennis coach, was responsible for her care. This question remains unanswered; the Groth case settled outside of court. However, if the Terzini and Addams matter proceeds to trial, we may finally have the answers to what has become a protracted debate about the interpretation of the new privacy tort.

The journalism exemption

The proceedings may also become an early test of the statutory journalism exemption. The legislation provides that the privacy tort does not apply to the publication of journalistic material by a journalist.⁶ The language is broad and leaves open considerable scope for interpretation. The exemption acts as a safeguard to ensure the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and media, and the right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy. However, some commentators have criticised the narrowed scope for potential claims arising from the privacy tort as a result of this exemption, especially against large media conglomerates like Nine. Accordingly, one of the key questions before the court will be whether Nine’s alleged conduct falls within the scope of that exemption.

Breach of confidence

Terzini’s lawyers have no doubt contemplated the potential application of the journalism exemption, having also sought to rely on breach of confidence, to which no such exemption applies. Breach of confidence refers to the unauthorised use of confidential information that was disclosed in a relationship of trust, in this case, the relationship between Addams and Terzini. It occurs when the defendant uses this information for a purpose other than that for which it was disclosed. It comes as little surprise that Terzini’s lawyers have sought to rely on this; the ink on McGrath J’s recent decision in AB v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2026] NSWSC 767 is yet to dry.

This case centred around private messages exchanged between three professional athletes in a group chat that were later accessed by one of the plaintiff’s former partners without permission. The messages were subsequently provided to a journalist at the ABC for the purpose of a proposed news story. McGrath J granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using, disclosing or reproducing the contents of the group chat and held that the messages possessed the necessary quality of confidence because they were private communications exchanged solely between the individuals and had never been disseminated outside the group. Significantly, the case reinforces that journalists and media organisations may become subject to obligations of confidence where they receive information they know was obtained in breach of confidence.

Why it matters

The litigation between Terzini and Nine is likely to attract considerable attention because it sits at the intersection of several competing legal principles: the protection of personal privacy, the legitimate role of investigative journalism, and the public interest in reporting on high-profile individuals. Whilst the introduction of the new privacy tort was seen to respond to long-standing concerns regarding deficiencies in Australia’s privacy laws, the boundaries of the new cause of action are yet to be tested.

Stay up to date on our Privacy & Media Law updates

Complete the form below to receive Wotton Kearney’s latest insights on privacy law, media disputes, the new privacy tort and significant court decisions.