Australia Now Has a Civil Right of Action for Serious Invasion of Privacy

Yes, if the recording constitutes a serious invasion of your privacy and was done intentionally or recklessly. Since 10 June 2025, Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) provides a civil right of action for intrusion upon seclusion. This covers surveillance, hidden cameras, eavesdropping, and covert recording. You do not need to prove financial loss. State surveillance laws create criminal offences but do not give you a civil remedy to sue for damages. The federal statutory tort does. Limitation periods are strict: you may have as little as 12 months from the date you became aware of the invasion. See our detailed page on <a href='/can-i-sue-someone-for-recording-me'>whether you can sue someone for recording you</a>.

The new statutory tort is directly relevant. In Victoria, pointing a camera at a neighbour's outdoor areas is not a criminal offence under the Surveillance Devices Act 1999, because outdoor activities are excluded from the definition of 'private activity.' In Queensland, there is no legislation covering optical surveillance at all. The federal statutory tort now provides a civil remedy for intrusion upon seclusion where the surveillance is serious, intentional or reckless, and directed at areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We have a dedicated page on <a href='/neighbour-camera-pointing-at-my-house'>neighbour cameras and the new privacy law</a>.

You may have a claim for misuse of personal information under the statutory tort. This covers publication of private health records, financial information, intimate images, personal addresses (doxxing), and other private material. Truth is not a defence: it does not matter whether the information was accurate. The journalist exemption is not confined to professional journalists and can cover citizen journalists subject to any code of practice, however weak. If the publication also damaged your reputation, you may have a concurrent defamation claim. We practise in both areas: see <a href='https://defamationlawyer.au'>defamationlawyer.au</a>. Urgent injunctions are available to restrain further publication.

The OAIC complaint pathway is free and does not require a lawyer. However, it only applies to organisations and agencies bound by the Australian Privacy Principles (APP entities). It does not cover invasions by individuals, small businesses with turnover under $3 million, or most employers handling employee records. Outcomes are typically modest, there are no punitive damages, and the process is slow. The statutory tort under Schedule 2 is a separate regime. It allows any individual to sue any person, corporation, or government body in court. Damages are capped at approximately $478,550 for non-economic loss, with exemplary damages included within this cap. The two regimes are not mutually exclusive, but for serious invasions, the statutory tort is the stronger avenue. See our comparison at <a href='/oaic-complaint-vs-suing-for-invasion-of-privacy'>OAIC complaint vs suing for invasion of privacy</a>.

The limitation period is one year from the date you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of the invasion, or three years from the date the invasion occurred, whichever expires first. The court has a discretion to extend the period up to a maximum of six years from occurrence. These deadlines are strict. If you are aware of an invasion, you should obtain legal advice promptly. See <a href='/privacy-tort-time-limits'>privacy tort time limits</a> for a full explanation.

Yes. We act for defendants as well as plaintiffs. Defendants may include individuals, employers, landlords, media organisations, private investigators, and corporations. The statutory tort provides a range of defences including lawful authority, consent, necessity, and defence of persons or property. Separately, Part 3 of Schedule 2 provides exemptions (for journalists, government agencies, law enforcement bodies, and persons under 18) that can be determined before trial on application, potentially resolving the matter without the cost of full proceedings. This procedural distinction between defences and exemptions is significant. If you have been served with an urgent injunction application, contact us immediately: we provide same-day and after-hours representation.

It can. The Australian Privacy Principles contain an employee records exemption, but the statutory tort under Schedule 2 does not. This means employers who monitor employee emails, track devices, or conduct covert surveillance may face claims. However, monitoring that is disclosed to employees, proportionate to a legitimate business purpose, and conducted in circumstances where the employee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy may be defended on grounds of implied consent or lawful authority. The seriousness threshold also applies: routine, disclosed monitoring is unlikely to meet it. See <a href='/employer-invasion-of-privacy'>employer invasion of privacy</a>.

No. The statutory tort commenced on 10 June 2025 and, as at the date of this page, no Australian court has delivered a substantive judgment on Schedule 2. Australian courts are likely to consider persuasive authority from comparable jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom (where the tort of misuse of private information developed from <em>Campbell v MGN Ltd</em> [2004] UKHL 22), New Zealand (where the tort of intrusion upon seclusion was recognised in <em>C v Holland</em> [2012] NZHC 2155), and Canada (where the tort was recognised in <em>Jones v Tsige</em> [2012] ONCA 32). These decisions provide useful guidance on reasonable expectation of privacy, the seriousness threshold, and the balancing of privacy against other interests. They are persuasive, not binding.