DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - TRIAL - EVIDENCE - PLAINTIFF'S REPUTATION AND CREDIT
DEFAMATION - JUSTIFICATION - TRUTH
DEFAMATION - PRIVILEGE - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - REBUTTAL OF PRIVILEGE BY MALICE
DEFAMATION - FAIR COMMENT
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - GENERAL DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT - IN GENERAL
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES - SPECIAL DAMAGES
TORTS - MISCELLANEOUS TORTS - INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER RELATIONS - RELEVANT PRINCIPLES
At all material times, both the first plaintiff and the first defendant were medical practitioners who delivered educational workshops through their respective company structures directed at providing advice to medical practitioners with respect to Medicare billings and the use of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).
The first plaintiff conducted such workshops through IqMed Pty Ltd (the second plaintiff), in collaboration with Adelaide to Outback GP Training Program Limited (ACN 601 797 371) (AOGP). The seminars were presented under the banner ‘ProMBS’.
The first defendant is the sole director of Business for Doctors Pty Ltd (the second defendant) (BFD) and together the defendants operate a Facebook group, open only to medical practitioners, named ‘Business for Doctors’.
The plaintiffs claim damages, including aggravated damages, from the defendants for alleged defamation and interference in contractual relations arising from the publication by the first defendant of three Facebook posts (and comments made in response thereto), two emails and one phone call between 9 and 22 September 2017 (the Publications). By way of summary, in the Facebook posts and the emails, the first defendant stated, inter alia, that the first plaintiff had used and sold the second defendant’s intellectual property when he delivered a workshop on the MBS, in collaboration with AOGP, on 3 September 2017 (the initial ProMBS workshop). In the Second Email, the first defendant stated, inter alia, that the first plaintiff had misrepresented himself as an expert, was lacking in knowledge and insight and may have been defrauding Medicare.
The plaintiffs allege that the natural and ordinary meaning of the Publications is defamatory and that as a result, the first plaintiff has suffered serious injury to his personal and professional reputation, considerable embarrassment and distress. The first plaintiff claims to have suffered economic loss ‘through the second plaintiff’.
In addition, it is alleged that by the publication of the emails and the phone call, the first defendant deliberately interfered with the contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and AOGP, as a result of which the second plaintiff suffered loss.
The defendants do not dispute that the first defendant published the three Facebook posts or sent the emails as pleaded. The defendants deny the first defendant said the words as claimed in the phone call, but admit the phone call was made and some of the content as alleged. The defendants plead by way of defence that insofar as the Publications conveyed the imputation that the first plaintiff ‘has knowingly passed off the…
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 Anand v Armstrong
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Anand v Armstrong [2020] SADC 34
Case
[2020] SADC 34
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Anand brought a defamation claim against Armstrong after Armstrong published a statement about Anand on social media, which was seen by a number of people. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the statement was defamatory, whether it was true, and whether there was any available defence. The court found that the statement was defamatory, as it was likely to injure Anand’s reputation and credit. The statement was not true, and therefore could not be justified. Armstrong claimed that the statement was a fair comment on a matter of public interest, but the court found that it did not meet the requirements for this defence. Armstrong also claimed that the statement was made with qualified privilege, but the court found that this defence was rebutted by evidence of malice. The court awarded Anand general and special damages. The amount of general damages was determined by considering the severity of the defamation and its impact on Anand’s reputation and credit. The special damages were awarded for out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the defamation. The court ordered Armstrong to pay Anand the full amount of damages awarded.