The identity of the "high profile man" is subject to a non-publication order until at least the end of July when there's next a hearing into the matter. And I don't want to put either Mia or Nath at risk by sharing it here.

But it's not too hard to find who it is if you go looking. And holy shit it's a shocker.

My biggest question is: if you're the person doing the alleged extortion, why would you extort some rando, rather than the very wealthy high profile man with whom she was allegedly having an affair? He's got the money to extort, and he's the one with more of an image to uphold.

This judge sounds dumb as fuck. That's not a matter of fact, and just opinion, so you can sue me, you absolute fuckhead.

This is proof that the ACCC is a paper tiger who can't actually protect consumer rights. Because the courts are just very heavily favoured to moneyed interests.

This is just one case in a long, long list of cases that end up this way.

The law just gets ignored.

This judge has demonstrated some questionable reasoning with these comments.

Hmmm, did they ever accidentally chargw less?

I guess even supermarkets need a pet.