The Game Meats Company of Australia v Farm Transparency International Ltd [2024] FCA 1455 

Summary

In The Game Meats Company of Australia (GMC) v Farm Transparency International Ltd (FTI), GMC sought to prevent animal protection company, FTI, from publishing a 14-minute video depicting alleged “extreme animal cruelty” [63] obtained by a hidden camera at GMC’s abattoir. While the Federal Court ruled against the injunction [218], it ordered FTI to pay $130,000 in damages for trespass to GMC’s abattoir on a few occasions [234], [263]. 

Facts

• GMC operates an abattoir in Eurobin Victoria, slaughtering and processing goats for export. They are licensed to do so under the Meat Industry Act 1993 (Vic). From January to April 2024, FTI employees accessed the Eurobin premises to install and retrieve covert video recording equipment. The footage depicted what FTI considers as ‘instances of animal cruelty’ [7]. 
• This footage was subsequently sent to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Channel Seven, and eventually posted on the internet [8]-[9]. Channel Seven did not broadcast the footage itself but published stories regarding the alleged animal cruelty at the abattoir. In May 2024, GMC was granted ex parte injunctive relief, preventing FTI from publishing the material until the application was determined [10].  
• In the Federal Court proceedings, GMC claimed that: 
  1. FTI’s obtained footage in consequence of unlawful trespass [15]; 
  2. FTI engaged in misleading conduct, which contravened section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), by providing the footage to Channel Seven and posting it online [16]; 
  3. FTI’s conduct constituted the tort of injurious falsehood [17]; and 
  4. GMC was entitled to equitable relief concerning the copyright subsisting in the footage [18]. 
• In its defence, FTI admitted it trespassed onto GMC’s property. However, it opposed the granting of an injunction on grounds that it would breach their implied right to political communication under the Constitution. It also argued injunctive relief is only available in trespass to prevent “continuing or extreme forms of damage”, a threshold which was not satisfied in this case [20]. 
• Ultimately, the central issue before the Court was whether GMC could obtain an injunction preventing FTI from publishing the footage. 

Decision

Trespass

The tort of trespass was the only cause of action successfully made out in this decision. Justice Snaden held that FTI committed the tort of trespass by not only orchestrating the entry of its agents onto the Eurobin premises, but also by placing their camera equipment in the premises [84]. Despite this finding, GMC was not entitled to an injunction to address the tortious wrongdoing. Notably, Justice Snaden held that the damage to GMC’s goodwill would be “difficult to pinpoint” and unlikely to amount to “immeasurable or extreme damage” [214] as per Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1. Consequently, the Court found damages totalling $130,000 was adequate compensation [264] (for discussion of ‘general damages’, see [226] and for ‘exemplary damages’, see [235]).

Injurious Falsehood

When considering the tort of injurious falsehood, GMC contended that the footage had the power to implicitly represent that GMC “condones cruelty to animals [and] is systematically cruel to animals” [89]. However, Justice Snaden reasoned that the footage conveys “no more than… what occurs at the Abattoir and that those occurrences… are apt to be described as having involved acts of animal cruelty.” [112] His honour also considered that FTI had not acted with malice by releasing the footage as they were publicising what they considered acts of animal cruelty [132]. Further, the Court was unsatisfied that GMC’s downturn in production was ‘damage’ attributable to FTI’s publication of the footage [139].

Australian Consumer Law

Furthermore, given that the publishing of the footage did not falsely represent that GMC “condones or turns a blind eye to animal cruelty”, the Court held that footage was unlikely to mislead or deceive a reasonable person, failing this claim [149].

Beneficial Ownership of Copyright

Another key issue was whether FTI ought to assign the footage’s copyright to GMC. The Court relied on Windridge Farm Pty Ltd v Grassi (2011) 254 FLR 87, whereby the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a constructive trust arose in respect of the copyright in a film that was created by animal rights activists whilst they were trespassing upon the plaintiff’s property. Following this line of reasoning, Justice Snaden held that GMC could not establish a cause of action in equity pursuant to a breach of copyright as they did not have a proprietary interest to protect [172], [182], [189].

Constitutional Defence

Considering the above, Justice Snaden commented that there is “no occasion to address the constitutional basis upon which FTI contended that no injunctive relief could issue” [219]. Quoting the case of Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328, his honour noted that the implied constitutional guarantee of free political communication “…is not a licence to commit trespass” (Nettle J at [261]).

Commentary

From a human rights perspective, this case highlights the difficult balance between the protection private property rights and transparent reporting of matters of public interest, such as animal cruelty.

The Court’s decision to allow FTI to publish footage depicting alleged animal cruelty indicates the judiciary’s desire to safeguard human rights, albeit implicitly, particularly as they relate to freedom of information. For example, Justice Snaden noted that, if FTI were to publish the footage, while the consequences to GMC would “unlikely be positive”, they would not be so severe that GMC would suffer “immeasurable or extreme damage” [214]. This case illustrates that animal cruelty is a legitimate area of public interest (see eg Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63).

Notwithstanding the above, this decision also reaffirms the significance of trespass violations, with the Court ordering FTI to pay damages to a sum that was a “significant imposition” [263]. The Court was aware that the sum of damages may represent several years of lost profits yet was firm in recognising the severity of FTI’s invasion on GMC’s rights [257].

The full case can be read here.

This summary was prepared by Zoe Chapman (Senior Associate) and Christine Zhong (Lawyer) at Allens.