Giller v. Procopets: Australia’s Privacy Protection Shows Signs of Improvement
Monash University - Faculty of Law
Tort Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 16, 2009
Monash U. Department of Business Law & Taxation Research Paper No. 32
In Giller v. Procopets, the defendant sought to harass and humiliate his former de facto partner by distributing video recordings depicting them engaged in sexual intercourse. At first instance, Ms Giller failed in her claim for mental distress damages on the basis of breach of confidence, intentional infliction of injury or an invasion of privacy because there were no Australian precedents allowing such awards. Following recent English authorities, the Victorian Court of Appeal accepted the claim in breach of confidence and awarded Ms. Giller $40,000 for injury to feelings, including$10,000 aggravated damages. The plaintiff’s success in breach of confidence allowed the court to leave open whether Australian law should recognize a common law right to privacy. By majority, the court also denied recovery for intentionally causing emotional distress falling short of psychiatric injury. The fact that mental distress damages are now available under breach of confidence has strengthened the status of this cause of action as a quasi-privacy tort.
Keywords: Giller v Procopets, mental distress damages, aggravated damages, common law, right to privacy, breach of confidence
JEL Classification: K00, K10, K13, K19, K30, K40, K49Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 11, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.406 seconds