Tessa Lee, Sports journalist reporting on global leagues since 2021.
The Sachi Dade Melbourne privacy breach case moved forward in the Federal Court on Friday, with the partner of retired AFL player Steven May alleging three separate privacy breaches by Melbourne Football Club and two senior club officials. The proceedings relate to events that allegedly occurred on February 4 and 5, 2026, and center on claims that private information was disclosed without consent. The case is significant because it could test emerging legal principles around privacy rights and confidentiality within professional sporting organisations.
Dade is pursuing legal action against Melbourne Football Club, senior coach Steven King and football manager Alan Richardson. Her legal team argues that private information was improperly shared, resulting in what has been described as a serious invasion of privacy.
Allegations Presented in Court
During Friday’s hearing, Dade’s barrister Nicholas Petrie appeared via video link and outlined the allegations before the court.
According to Petrie, three separate privacy breaches are alleged to have taken place across a two day period. One of the incidents is said to involve a Microsoft Teams meeting attended by approximately 15 people.
Petrie told the court that his client is seeking exemplary damages as part of the claim. Exemplary damages are awarded in certain cases where conduct is considered particularly serious and are intended to deter similar actions in the future.
The allegations stem from concerns regarding the handling of confidential information connected to Dade and former Melbourne defender Steven May.
Background to the Dispute
The matter gained public attention in April following reports that confidentiality obligations may have been breached during a meeting involving partners of Melbourne players.
At the time, Melbourne Football Club acknowledged concerns surrounding the situation and issued an apology. The club stated that the meeting was intended to reassure families about support available to players and their partners.
Melbourne said the purpose of the discussion was to demonstrate the club’s commitment to supporting both its playing group and their families.
While the club expressed regret for any distress caused, the Federal Court proceedings will determine whether legal breaches occurred and whether compensation is warranted.
Discovery Request Central to Current Proceedings
A major focus of Friday’s hearing involved Dade’s request for discovery.
Discovery is a legal process that requires parties to provide documents, communications and other materials that may be relevant to the dispute.
Petrie told the court he was seeking access to documents and information from Melbourne Football Club, King and Richardson. He argued that such material could help establish how the respondents became aware of the private information at the center of the allegations.
The requested documents may include communications, records and evidence relating to the acquisition and dissemination of the information in question.
According to Petrie, obtaining those materials could also assist discussions between the parties and potentially support efforts to resolve the matter before a full trial.
“The documents will help establish how the respondents came to be aware of the private information,” Petrie submitted to the court.
Melbourne Seeks Additional Time
Representing Melbourne Football Club, barrister Justin Hooper requested additional time to gather potentially relevant documents.
Hooper told the court that the process may require reviewing internal club systems as well as email and phone records belonging to King and Richardson.
He described the case as both novel and complex, noting that it involves sensitive and confidential information.
The court accepted Melbourne’s request for more time. The club has not yet filed its formal defence to Dade’s concise statement of claim.
Melbourne has now been given until July 24 to submit its response.
Potential Significance of the Case
The proceedings could become an important test of privacy rights within Australian sport.
Professional sporting organisations regularly handle sensitive information involving players, staff and family members. Cases involving alleged privacy breaches can raise broader questions about confidentiality obligations, internal communications and the responsibilities of sporting clubs.
Legal experts will likely monitor the matter closely given the increasing focus on privacy protections across Australia.
The outcome may also influence how clubs manage communications involving players and their families in the future.
Steven May’s Retirement
The legal action comes several months after Steven May announced his retirement from the AFL.
May stepped away from professional football in March after revealing he had experienced a mental health crisis. The former Melbourne defender had been on personal leave prior to making the decision.
In a statement released at the time, May said retiring immediately was the right choice for himself, his family and the club.
The veteran defender enjoyed a distinguished AFL career spanning more than 250 games. He played 123 matches for Gold Coast before joining Melbourne, where he became a key figure in the club’s premiership success.
May finished his career with 128 appearances for Melbourne and earned multiple individual honours, including two All Australian selections.
Next Court Date Confirmed
The Federal Court matter remains in its early stages, with no findings made regarding the allegations.
The current focus is on the exchange of documents and preparation of legal responses before the case progresses further.
The court scheduled the next case management hearing for September 11. By that stage, Melbourne Football Club is expected to have filed its defence and further discussions regarding evidence and discovery will likely take place.
As the proceedings continue, both the sporting and legal communities will be watching closely to see how the claims are addressed and whether the matter proceeds to trial or is resolved through negotiations.