Darwin v Norman - [2020] NSWSC 357

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Darwin v Norman [2020] NSWSC 357
Hearing dates: 5-9 August 20193-4 October 2019
Date of orders: 08 April 2020
Decision date: 08 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1 Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant for $200,000 dollars.
2 Judgment for the third plaintiff against the first defendant for $200,000 dollars.
3 Judgment for the first and second defendants against the fourth plaintiff.
4 The first defendant is to pay the second and third plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings.
5 The second and third plaintiffs are to bring in within 14 days a minute of the form of a permanent injunction against further defamatory publication by the first defendant.

Catchwords:
DEFAMATION – defamatory matter – where material published in local newspaper and on the internet – where defendant admitted majority of pleaded imputations conveyed – remaining imputations found to have been conveyed – plaintiffs defamed – judgment for plaintiffs

DEFAMATION – defences – defence of justification not established
DEFAMATION – remedies – permanent injunction – aggravated damages
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496
Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adrian Brennock - second plaintiff
Phillip Dixon – third plaintiff
Gillian Norman – first defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
N Olsen - plaintiffs
Gillian Norman - self represented 5-9 August 2019;
J L Harrison 3-4 October 2019
Solicitors:
Rose Litigation - plaintiffs
N/A

File Number(s): 2017/81825
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The plaintiffs claim damages for the publication in October 2016 of allegedly defamatory material in a local newspaper circulating in Nimbin in northern New South Wales. They make a similar claim in respect of matters published on the internet in October and December 2016 and in April 2017.
The first plaintiff discontinued his claim against the second defendant on 30 October 2017 and against the first defendant on 5 August 2019. The solicitor for the fourth plaintiff filed a notice of ceasing to act on 29 May 2018. The fourth plaintiff has taken no active part in the proceedings since his solicitor ceased to act and he did not appear at the trial. There will be judgment against the fourth plaintiff, in favour of both defendants.
Only the second and third plaintiffs, Adrian Brennock and Phillip Dixon, appeared at the trial of the action that commenced on 5 August 2019 and continued for five days thereafter, with a further two days in October. I will refer to them as “the plaintiffs”. They were represented by counsel and solicitors. They pursued their action only against Ms Norman, the first defendant. I will refer to her as “the defendant”. She was self-represented until the last two days of the trial, 3 and 4 October…

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 Darwin v Norman

Details

AGLC: Darwin v Norman [2020] NSWSC 357
Case: [2020] NSWSC 357
Decision Date: 08 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Darwin v Norman, the plaintiffs sought a declaration of defamation, aggravated damages and an injunction against the defendant for material published in a local newspaper and on the internet. The defendant admitted that the majority of the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim were conveyed by the publications. However, the court found that the remaining imputations were also conveyed, thereby establishing that the plaintiffs were defamed.

The court considered the defences available to the defendant, including justification. The defendant argued that the defamatory material was true and that there was a public interest in its publication. However, the court found that the defence of justification was not established. The court held that the defendant had not discharged the onus of proving the truth of the imputations and that the public interest in the publication of the material did not outweigh the plaintiffs' right to their reputation.

The court awarded the plaintiffs a declaration of defamation, aggravated damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the defamatory material in any form. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated damages because the defendant's conduct in publishing the defamatory material was egregious and caused the plaintiffs significant emotional distress. The court also held that a permanent injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiffs' reputation and to prevent further harm.

The final orders of the court included a declaration of defamation, an award of aggravated damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the defamatory material. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings. The judgment in favour of the plaintiffs serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individuals' reputations and the availability of legal remedies for defamation.

Orders