Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 4)

In the case of Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 4), the plaintiff, Capilano Honey Ltd, a bee honey production company, sought relief against the defendant, Mr Dowling, for defamatory and injurious falsehood statements made about the company and its directors on the defendant’s website and various social media platforms. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the claims, the extent of the defamatory impact, and the appropriate remedy. The plaintiff argued that the defamatory statements, which included claims that the company was selling toxic honey, were false, malicious, and injurious to its business reputation. The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the statements were truthful and made in good faith.

The court had to decide whether the imputations made by the defendant were defamatory, whether they were false, and if they were made maliciously. The court found that the defamatory imputations were indeed made out, as the statements were published widely and had the potential to harm the plaintiff’s reputation. The court further determined that the defendant could not rely on any available defences, such as truth or honest opinion, because the statements were implausible and not substantiated by any evidence. Regarding injurious falsehood, the court held that the written online statements were false and malicious, even though the defendant held a possibly sincere belief in their truth. The court emphasised the difficulty in assessing the quantum of damages due to the civil onus and standard of proof, but ultimately awarded damages to the plaintiff.

The court also considered whether a permanent injunction should be granted to prevent the defendant from repeating the defamatory statements and making similar ones in the future. The defendant’s previous conduct in the litigation, including the persistence in making the defamatory statements despite being warned, was taken into account. The court found that a permanent injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff’s reputation and prevent further harm. Consequently, the court ordered Mr Dowling to refrain from repeating the defamatory statements and making similar ones in the future, as well as to pay damages to Capilano Honey Ltd for the defamation and injurious falsehood claims.