Eppinga v Kalil

The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the appellant, Eppinga, against the respondents, Kalil. The dispute arose from a Facebook post made by the respondents, which the appellant alleged was defamatory. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Facebook post was capable of conveying the defamatory imputations pleaded by the appellant, the extent of publication of the defamatory matter, and whether the respondents could rely on the defence of common law qualified privilege. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondents had discharged their burden of proving the absence of malice, given that the matter complained of was published in reply to an online attack and was sufficiently connected to the occasion of privilege.

The Court of Appeal found that the Facebook post was capable of conveying the pleaded imputations. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court accepted that the matter was published on an occasion of privilege and was sufficiently connected to that occasion. However, the court determined that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving malice. Evidence, including witness testimony and contemporaneous documents, demonstrated the respondents' state of mind, which did not establish malice.

Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of both the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.