By writ of summons filed 13 July 2021 the plaintiff (Mr Carter) brought a defamation action against the defendant (Mr Napper). The indorsement of claim was in the following terms:
1.The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant arise from defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff, which were published by the Defendant:
a.in an email sent on 15 July 2020 at 12:22 AM to…
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 Carter v Napper
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carter v Napper [2022] WADC 25
Case
[2022] WADC 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the District Court of Western Australia, Benjamin Carter filed a defamation lawsuit against Paul Napper. Carter alleged that Napper made defamatory statements about him, including calling him a paedophile and accusing him of engaging in lewd activities with minors. Napper did not defend the case, leading to a default judgment in favor of Carter. The court assessed damages and found that Napper's comments were defamatory and caused Carter significant emotional distress. The court awarded Carter $30,000 in general damages and $10,000 in aggravated damages. The court also granted an injunction preventing Napper from making further defamatory statements about Carter. Lastly, the court ordered Napper to pay Carter's legal costs on an indemnity basis.