Cao v Liu

Cao sued Liu for defamation, claiming Liu had sent an email containing defamatory statements. Liu denied sending the email and Cao failed to prove otherwise. Liu raised a defence of triviality, arguing the statements were not serious enough to warrant defamation. The court considered the evidence and concluded Liu had not sent the email and the statements were trivial. Cao's claim failed and Liu was awarded costs. The court provisionally assessed damages but did not make a final determination.

The key issue for the court was whether Liu was the publisher of the defamatory email. Cao needed to prove this to establish Liu's liability for defamation. The court found that Cao had not provided sufficient evidence to prove Liu sent the email. Cao relied on circumstantial evidence and a witness statement, but these were not enough to discharge the burden of proof. Without establishing publication, Cao's defamation claim could not succeed.

The court also considered Liu's defence of triviality. The defamatory statements in the email were found to be not serious enough to warrant defamation. The court examined the content of the statements and the context in which they were made. It concluded that the statements did not cause or were likely to cause substantial harm to Liu's reputation. As the defence of triviality was successful, Liu was not liable for defamation even if the email had been sent by Liu.