Aldridge v Johnston

This case concerned an appeal from a decision of the District Court of South Australia in a defamation proceeding. The appellant, Aldridge, was the defendant in the original action brought by Johnston. The dispute centred on statements published on a Facebook page operated by Aldridge, which Johnston alleged were defamatory.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the trial judge erred in refusing Aldridge's application to reopen the evidence after judgment had been reserved, and whether Aldridge was liable for the publication of defamatory comments on his Facebook page. Aldridge sought to introduce screenshots related to alleged hacking and an activity log, arguing they supported his defence.

The Full Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Peek and Hughes JJ, upheld the trial judge's refusal to reopen the evidence. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Grech v Deak-Fabrickant (No 2)* and *Spotlight Pty Ltd v NCON Australia Ltd*, which stipulate that reopening a case after judgment is reserved requires exceptional circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence not reasonably discoverable before, inadvertent error, or a mistaken apprehension of fact or law. The Court found that Aldridge's proposed evidence did not meet this stringent threshold, noting the importance of finality in litigation and the potential for such applications to cause significant inefficiencies. Furthermore, the Court considered Aldridge's liability as a publisher, referencing the principles in *Voller*, and found that Aldridge, by operating a public Facebook page and failing to delete comments, had participated in the publication of defamatory material.

The appeal was dismissed. Aldridge was found liable for participating in the publication of the defamatory comments unless he could demonstrate he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the defamatory matter. The Court found that Aldridge had admitted to reading some comments and had a practice of not deleting them, which militated against such a defence.