Judge lifts Tinkler super-injunction against Fairfax Media
Mr Tinkler had obtained orders preventing Fairfax Media from revealing details of a loan of about $700 million or the existence of the lawsuit since late last year.
Following a settlement between Fairfax Media and Mr Tinkler, Justice David Beach on Wednesday lifted the super-injunction, which Fairfax lawyer Peter Bartlett has described as "a dark episode for freedom of speech".
"Late last year Paddy Manning, a business reporter with The Sydney Morning Herald, acting quite properly, sent an email to Nathan Tinkler pre-publication asking certain questions. With less than an hour's notice to Fairfax Media in Sydney, Mr Tinkler sought an injunction against Fairfax Media in the Supreme Court of Victoria," Mr Bartlett said.
While key details about Manning's article remain suppressed under an agreement between Mr Tinkler's Aston Resources and Fairfax Media, it can be revealed that the information related to a loan issued in the first half of 2012.
The loan, plus accumulated interest, was now valued at around $700 million, with an interest rate above 10 per cent. But the substance of Mr Manning's original story will never be published.
Mr Bartlett said the super-injunction issued by Justice John Digby last year went further than Mr Tinkler's own barrister was asking for and even prevented Fairfax Media from publishing material that was already in the public arena.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The Victorian Supreme Court, through Justice David Beach, lifted a super-injunction that coal entrepreneur Nathan Tinkler had obtained to stop Fairfax Media from revealing details of a loan or even the existence of the related lawsuit. The order was lifted after Fairfax Media and Mr Tinkler reached a settlement.
In this context a super-injunction was a court order that prevented Fairfax Media from publishing details of a loan or acknowledging the existence of the lawsuit. For investors, such orders matter because they can limit public access to material information about a company—like loans, interest obligations or legal disputes—that could affect a company's financial position and investor decisions.
Nathan Tinkler is described in the article as a coal entrepreneur. The companies and organisations mentioned are Aston Resources (Mr Tinkler's company) and Fairfax Media, including The Sydney Morning Herald and reporter Paddy Manning.
The article states the loan was issued in the first half of 2012. With accumulated interest, it was valued at around $700 million and carried an interest rate above 10 percent.
No. According to the article, while some factual context about the loan can be revealed, key details of Paddy Manning's original story remain suppressed under an agreement between Aston Resources and Fairfax Media, and the substance of the original story will never be published.
The article reports that Mr Tinkler sought an injunction in the Supreme Court of Victoria with less than an hour's notice to Fairfax Media in Sydney. The initial super-injunction was issued last year by Justice John Digby and, according to Fairfax lawyer Peter Bartlett, went further than Mr Tinkler's own barrister had sought and even prevented publication of material that was already public.
Fairfax lawyer Peter Bartlett described the episode as "a dark episode for freedom of speech," noting that the injunction restricted the media's ability to report on matters of public interest and even blocked publication of information already in the public domain.
Everyday investors should note that court orders and settlements can limit public disclosure of material information—such as large loans or legal disputes—which can affect transparency around a company's financial health. This case highlights the importance of monitoring legal developments and company announcements for potential impacts on investments.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
