Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 5) - [2021] NSWSC 653

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 653
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 11 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The defendant, Mr Shane Dowling, must pay the costs of the litigation of the plaintiff Capilano Honey Ltd on the ordinary basis.
(2) The defendant, Mr Shane Dowling, must pay the costs of the litigation of the plaintiff Dr Ben McKee on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords:
COSTS — defamation and injurious falsehood claims — whether costs should be awarded on ordinary or indemnity bases in respect of each claim

Legislation Cited:
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 40

Cases Cited:
Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 217
Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 264
Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25
Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 2

Category: Costs
Parties: Hive and Wellness Australia Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
Dr Ben McKee (Second Plaintiff)
Shane Dowling (Defendant) (self-represented)
Representation:
Counsel:
M A Cowden (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Addisons Lawyers (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2016/299522
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

On 26 March 2021, I returned verdicts and entered judgments for the plaintiffs, and gave reasons for doing so, in Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 264. Costs were reserved, after which affidavit evidence and written submissions were received from all three parties with respect to the question. This judgment resolves the question of costs, and concludes the litigation.
In this judgment, I adopt the same abbreviations as in the substantive judgment, and this latter judgment should be read in conjunction with the former.
As I understood the written submissions, there was no real dispute as to the liability of the defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiffs on the ordinary basis. And even if I am wrong in my understanding of the position of the defendant, in any event, the plaintiffs having succeeded in their claims, in my opinion there is no reason why costs should not follow the event, at the least on the ordinary basis.
The real dispute that remains for my consideration is whether the defendant should be liable to pay indemnity costs to the plaintiff Capilano (which succeeded in its claim for injurious falsehood) or the plaintiff Dr McKee (who succeeded in his claim for defamation).
I shall be brief in my determination of those questions, not least because I believe that the enquiry is, with respect, an arid one: on the evidence, there is no prospect whatsoever of the defendant being in a position to meet the costs of the successful plaintiffs on either basis. Having said that, I have borne steadily in mind that the impecuniosity or otherwise of the defendant is irrelevant to the question of costs: Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164; [2019] HCA 25.

Indemnity costs for Capilano?

As can be seen from the substantive…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 5) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 653
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 5) involved a dispute between Capilano Honey Ltd, a company involved in the production and sale of honey, and Dowling, a former employee and shareholder, over allegations of defamation and injurious falsehood. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where Capilano Honey Ltd sought to recover legal costs incurred during the proceedings. The central legal issues focused on the basis on which costs should be awarded for the defamation and injurious falsehood claims, specifically whether the ordinary or indemnity basis should apply to each claim.

The court examined the principles governing the award of costs in defamation cases, particularly the application of section 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act, which allows for indemnity costs in cases of malicious falsehood. The court considered whether the defamatory statements made by Dowling were made maliciously and whether the injurious falsehoods were published with malice. The court's analysis involved a detailed examination of the evidence and the nature of the statements made by Dowling, as well as the context in which they were made.

In its decision, the court determined that the defamatory statements were not made maliciously, and therefore, the ordinary basis of costs was appropriate for the defamation claim. However, regarding the injurious falsehood claim, the court found that the statements were made maliciously, leading to the conclusion that indemnity costs were warranted for that claim. The court's reasoning was based on the clear distinction between the nature of the defamatory statements and the injurious falsehoods, as well as the evidence presented on the issue of malice. The court held that the costs should be awarded on the ordinary basis for the defamation claim and on the indemnity basis for the injurious falsehood claim.

As a result, the court ordered that Capilano Honey Ltd be awarded costs on the ordinary basis for the defamation claim and on the indemnity basis for the injurious falsehood claim, reflecting the differing levels of malice found in each aspect of the proceedings.

Orders