Sam Groth threatens to commence action under statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy for stories published in Herald Sun, claiming they are not “journalistic material” and therefore may be the subject of proceedings
July 30, 2025 |
The first reported threat to use the statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy has been made by Sam and Brittan Groth relating to 2 Herald Sun articles. The nub of the articles, as far as the Groths are concerned, relates to how and when Sam Groth began his relationship with Brittany Groth. The story is covered by the Guardian in Victorian Liberal deputy Sam Groth and wife threaten defamation and privacy action over News Corp stories and the Age with Liberal deputy Sam Groth to test new privacy laws over ‘malicious gossip’.The Age story goes into much more detail about the nature of the allegations contained in the Herald Sun article. The Age also provides a quasi guide to the elements of a statutory tort of invasion of privacy. It is incomplete and in part misleading. It states that journalists have a defence. It is more than that. It is an exemption. In these circumstances it revolves around the scope and operation of section 15 of Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988.
Under Section 15(1) the tort does not apply to an invasion of privacy where that invasion “.. involves the collection, preparation for publication or publication of journalistic material” by a journalist or an employer of a journalist. A journalist is defined in section 15(2) as being someone who:
(a) works in a professional capacity as a journalist; and
(b) is subject to:
(i) standards of professional conduct that apply to journalists; or
(ii) a code of practice that applies to journalists.
Section 15(3) defines journalistic material as being material which:
(a) has the character of news, current affairs or a documentary; or
(b) consists of commentary or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs or a documentary; or
(c) consists of editorial content relating to news, current affairs or a documentary.
According to extracts of the legal letter the stories did not constitute journalistic material. If proceedings were commenced Newscorp will almost certainly claim the exemption. Then there will be an argument on whether the publications were journalistic material. A finding will need to be made.
If pressed this argument will be quite significant.
The Guardian Story provides:
Former tennis star’s lawyer alleges Herald Sun articles are defamatory and constitute a serious invasion of Brittany Groth’s privacy under new tort laws
Victorian Liberal party deputy leader and former Australian tennis star, Sam Groth, has threatened legal action over News Corp stories which claimed Liberal colleagues of Groth’s were querying how he began his relationship with his wife, Brittany, with his lawyers claiming the articles are worse than “gutter journalism”.
A legal letter from law firm Giles George alleges two articles in the Herald Sun and social media posts published this week constitute a serious invasion of Brittany Groth’s privacy under new tort laws, which came into force last month.
“The article did not amount to ‘news’ and did not even have the ‘character of news’ – it was not ‘journalistic material’,” the letter from defamation lawyer Patrick George claimed.
“It was, at best, malicious gossip which was not even investigated … It would be too kind to describe the article as ‘gutter journalism’ because it did not amount to ‘journalism’ at all.”
The articles are likely to cause serious harm to the MP’s reputation, the letter said.
According to the letter, the articles were also published by the Courier Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Mercury and promoted on News Corp’s social media accounts, and were open for comments by members of the public.
The Groths are demanding all the articles and posts be removed permanently by 5pm on Wednesday and the paper publish an apology which would say in part: “On 29 July 2025, the Herald Sun published disgraceful gossip about Sam and Brittany Groth. The allegations that were published were defamatory, false and extremely improper – they should not have been published”.
The letter also claims that the Groths intend to “pursue legal action against your sources” and demands as “a matter of urgency” that the names of those sources be provided, along with the retention of “all communications” with them.
Sam Groth said the publication was “a shock and a disgrace”.
“It amounted to serious tortious conduct in relation to which we will pursue legal action if it cannot be resolved,” he said.
“It is shocking that a media company would behave this way in 2025 – taking away a woman’s privacy and agency and causing her extreme distress as a mother.
“This is not just about us. It’s about drawing a line in the sand and ensuring that publishers are not allowed to get away with defamation and the reckless harm it causes.”
The article claimed unnamed “Liberal colleagues” had raised concerns with Groth over when the couple’s relationship began, as they feared the issue could be weaponised by their political opponents. The letter states “we are instructed that no colleague, Liberal or otherwise, raised the matter with our client prior to your [reporter’s] questions being sent … this was not an issue in the party room, or more broadly”.
Asked about the report on Tuesday, the premier, Jacinta Allan, refused to comment, stating “families shouldn’t be dragged into politics”.
The Victorian Liberal leader, Brad Battin, said “any attempt to besmirch the relationship of Sam, Britt and their children is a disgrace”.
Groth was elevated to deputy Liberal leader in December after a successful spill by Battin against then-leader, John Pesutto, who had lost a defamation case brought on by fellow Liberal MP, Moira Deeming.
The editor of the Herald Sun, Sam Weir, declined to comment when approached by Guardian Australia but was quoted in the Herald Sun: “We stand by our reporting on a matter of public interest, covering important issues which could have a major impact on Victorian politics in the lead-up to an election.”
The Age story provides:
Victorian Liberal MP and former tennis star Sam Groth could be a test case for Australia’s new privacy laws after launching legal action against the Herald Sun and one of its journalists over what he claims was a serious invasion of his private life.
Groth and his wife, Brittany, on Wednesday issued a concerns notice against the newspaper after it published a series of reports suggesting their relationship began on an illegal basis.
The articles – which were condemned by Premier Jacinta Allan and Opposition Leader Brad Battin for breaching a long-held convention against scrutinising politicians’ family lives – implied the couple began their sexual relationship while she was under 18 and he, as a tennis coach, was responsible for her care.
Groth, who is deputy leader of the state Liberal Party, issued a statement on Wednesday describing the reports as false and defamatory.
“Yesterday’s publication about us was a shock and a disgrace,” he said. “It was full of lies.
“It was a serious act of misconduct for a newspaper to name and shame an alleged victim without her prior knowledge or consent. It is shocking that a media company would behave this way in 2025 – taking away a woman’s privacy and agency and causing her extreme distress as a mother.”
In a scathing concerns letter, lawyers for the Groths warned that the reports constituted a serious breach of Brittany Groth’s privacy under a new tort law, which came into force in June.
The letter also signalled their intention to sue for defamation.
“The article…was, at best, malicious gossip which was not even investigated,” the letter reads. “There was no basis to allege that any relevant sexual misconduct took place merely because our clients are said to have met when Mrs Groth was 17.
“Mr Groth has not been charged with any crime, or even investigated or questioned by police. It would be too kind to describe the article as ‘gutter journalism’ because it did not amount to ‘journalism’ at all.”
If the matter goes to court, it will serve as a high-profile test of Australia’s new privacy protections brought in by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus.
Under the tort for serious invasions of privacy, a person can take action against individuals and organisations for either physically intruding on their private space or misusing information that relates to them in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The laws contain a defence for journalists.
To win in court, the Groths would need to show that the invasion of their privacy caused by the Herald Sun was serious, either intentional or reckless, and that the public interest in protecting their privacy outweighs any countervailing public interest, such as freedom of media.
Under the privacy tort law, the Groths do not have to demonstrate loss to be awarded damages. A court can also grant an injunction or order an apology.
The concerns letter says that, if the allegation was true that Brittany Groth, as a child, was a victim of sexual assault, disclosure of her identity would be a criminal offence.
“Naming and shaming an alleged victim of sexual assault, a child at the time no less, is a grotesque act,” it says.
“It is incomprehensible that one of Australia’s largest media organisations did so without any notice to Mrs Groth, without any care for how she would feel about her sex life being discussed publicly, how shamed she would feel to be identified as a victim or alleged victim of a sexual crime, or how it would impact her children.”
The Groths are being represented by defamation expert Patrick George and barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC.
They offered to abandon their legal action if the Herald Sun removes the stories from online by 5pm Wednesday, undertakes to never republish them and issues an apology for publishing “disgraceful gossip about Sam and Brittany Goth”.
The initial Herald Sun article, by reporter Stephen Drill, claimed that unnamed Liberals had previously questioned Groth about the origins of his relationship with Brittany amid concerns the issue may be weaponised by political opponents.
The article claimed that at the time the pair began their relationship in 2011, Brittany was aged 16 or 17 and Sam was either 23 or 24 and coaching at her local tennis club.
Although the age of consent is 16 in Victoria, it is a criminal offence to have sex with someone under 18 if they are under your care or supervision.
The Groths married in 2018 and have twin four-year-old sons.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Allan declined to comment on the Groths’ relationship. “Families shouldn’t be dragged into politics,” she said.
However, her colleague, Health Minister Mary-Anne Thomas, was less reticent.
“If you’re asking me whether I think it’s appropriate for a person that is in a position of influence or authority, like a teacher or coach, to be dating a teenager, then the answer to that is no,” she said.