Doe v Dowling

The applicant, Doe, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, Dowling, from publishing defamatory material. The dispute arose from comments made by Dowling on social media about Doe, which were based on unsubstantiated rumours from an unknown source. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether an injunction should be granted and, if so, whether non-publication orders should also be made.

The court needed to assess whether the defamatory publication was apparently indefensible and, if so, what quality of evidence was required to show a prospect of a viable defence. The court also had to consider whether non-publication orders should be made in aid of the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defamation, and whether such orders were necessary in the public interest.

The court held that the defamatory publication was apparently indefensible, as it was based on unsubstantiated rumours from an unnamed source. The court noted that the quality of evidence required to show a prospect of a viable defence needed to be high, given the defamatory nature of the publication. The court also found that the non-publication orders were necessary in the public interest, given the narrowness of the orders sought and the importance of protecting the reputation of the applicant. The court granted the interlocutory injunction and the non-publication orders.

The court ordered that Dowling be restrained from publishing the defamatory material and that any existing publication be removed. The court also ordered that any further publication be subject to non-publication orders.