PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory injunction – Defamation and misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to Australian Consumer Law alleged – Where publications are videos uploaded to the internet – Application to take down publications and restrain defendants from future publication – Where publications relate to debate of efficacy of traditional/natural medicines – Balance of convenience – Whether public interest in allowing debate to continue unrestrained favours declining injunctive relief.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Australian Consumer Law – Misleading and deceptive conduct – Whether defendants carrying on a business – Whether conduct is ‘in trade or commerce’ – Whether publications for educational purpose or have a commercial flavour.
TORTS – Defamation – Interlocutory injunction – Where other causes of action advanced – Whether particular caution in granting interlocutory relief in defamation cases applicable to other causes of action – Application of rule in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269.
On 24 December 2020, the plaintiffs by writ sought damages, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing certain material, and a mandatory injunction for the removal of certain publications from the internet that they allege is defamatory. The second plaintiff also seeks damages pursuant to s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’),[1] contending that the defendants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the ACL.
On 23 February 2021, the plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or causing to be published in any form, or maintaining online for download, or uploading so as to make available for publication online:
(a) 15 specific videos;
(b) hyperlinks to a Facebook group described by the plaintiffs as the ‘Dr Farrah Hate Page’;
(c) certain…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Agustin-Bunch v Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Agustin-Bunch v Smith [2021] VSC 158
Case
[2021] VSC 158
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Agustin-Bunch, sought an interlocutory injunction against the respondents, Smith, who had published videos on the internet alleging misleading and deceptive conduct and defamation. The videos pertained to the debate surrounding the efficacy of traditional and natural medicines. The application requested that the videos be taken down and that the respondents be restrained from any future publication. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding the balance of convenience and whether the public interest favoured allowing the debate to continue without restraint.
The court examined the nature of the respondents' conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, considering whether it was 'in trade or commerce' and whether the respondents were carrying on a business. It also evaluated the applicability of the rule from Bonnard v Perryman in relation to interlocutory relief in defamation cases and its relevance to the other causes of action. The court considered whether the publications were for educational purposes or had a commercial aspect, which would affect the application of the Australian Consumer Law.
The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. It found that the public interest in allowing the debate to continue unrestrained outweighed the applicant's rights. The court determined that the publications had a commercial flavour and that the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applied, requiring particular caution in granting interlocutory relief. The application was dismissed.
The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that there be no order as to costs.