Page:ESafety Commissioner v X Corp.pdf/22

 not wholly pointless. However, removal of the stabbing video from X would not prevent people who want to see the video and have access to the internet from watching it.

58 On the other hand, there is uncontroversial expert evidence that a court in the US (where X Corp is based) would be highly unlikely to enforce a final injunction of the kind sought by the Commissioner; and it would seem to follow that the same is true of any interim injunction to similar effect. This is not in itself a reason why X Corp should not be held to account, but it suggests that an injunction is not a sensible way of doing that. Courts rightly hesitate to make orders that cannot be enforced, as it has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

59 It was suggested that an injunction, even if not enforceable, could have an educative or deterrent effect. X Corp's amenability to education and deterrence might be thought to be open to doubt. In any event, while these are sometimes important considerations in the framing of final relief, I doubt whether they have a proper role in the making of interlocutory orders.

A further issue: material non-disclosure

60 X Corp also submitted that the Commissioner's failure to disclose the decision record at the initial hearing (which proceeded as if it was an ex parte application) required the interlocutory injunction to be dissolved. In oral submissions it was stressed that no allegation of deliberate concealment or anything professionally improper was being made. It was also accepted that the point only affected the period between the initial grant of the injunction and the orders made two days later that extended it. The extension followed a further hearing at which X Corp was represented.

61 It may be theoretically possible to dissolve the interim injunction, nunc pro tunc, only in so far as it had effect during a particular period. However, the point seems to be largely academic in the light of the difficulties attending the enforcement of the injunction.

62 In any event, while disclosure of the decision record at the first hearing might have lengthened that hearing, I am not persuaded that it would have led to the injunction being refused. I have explained above why I do not consider that the decision record points to error in the decision to issue the removal notice. eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499