(2) The defendants shall pay the plaintiff $65,000 in damages.
(3) The defendants shall pay interest at the rate of 3% per annum on $32,500 from 1 July 2020.
(4) The defendants and each of them are restrained from publishing, on social media, the internet or anywhere else, any material that alleges or imputes to anyone, other than each other, that the plaintiff or Wild2Free has been involved in misappropriation of funds or fraud or that the plaintiff has carried on Wild2Free or any activities in animal care for the plaintiff’s own personal benefit or for the purpose of obtaining funds for herself.
(5) The defendants shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
(6) If any party seeks a special or different order as to costs or interest, such application may be made within 14 days of the date of judgment by a submission in writing consisting of no more than 3 pages, not including any documents that are not otherwise in evidence upon which the application relies.
(7) Any party adversely affected by any such application may reply, on the same conditions, no later than 14 days after receipt of the application.
(8) Other than the leave granted, leave is granted to re-list the matter on the issue of costs, if the matter cannot, on a disclosed, reasonable basis, be dealt with on the papers. Any such application should be made to my Associate within seven (7) days of judgment.
(9) The plaintiff is directed to file and serve a Short Minute of Order reflecting the foregoing and calculating the interest within seven (7) days of judgment.
Catchwords:
DEFAMATION — defamatory matter — particular imputations — fraud — misuse of charitable funds for personal financial benefit — misappropriation of funds — misleading people for the purpose of raising funds — registered charity — Wild2Free — wildlife care
DEFAMATION — defamatory matter — capacity to convey pleaded imputations — ordinary reasonable reader — ordinary and natural meaning of words — Grapevine effect — onus of proof on plaintiff — on the balance of probabilities — Jones v Dunkel — publications found to have conveyed some pleaded imputations
DEFAMATION — publication — multiple publications — emails — social media — Facebook — Facebook comments — defendants found to have published defamatory material — republication — defendants responsible for republication
DEFAMATION — harm — Defamation Act 2005-2019 — previous version of legislation applicable — assumption of harm — serious harm not necessary to prove — plaintiff suffered significant harm
DEFAMATION — defences — Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) — justification— triviality — honest opinion —contextual truth — lack of jurisdiction — where email was published overseas — common…
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 Harvey v Henderson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Harvey v Henderson [2025] NSWSC 601
Case
[2025] NSWSC 601
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Harvey v Henderson was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Harvey, brought a defamation action against the defendants, Henderson, alleging defamatory statements made by Henderson in emails and on social media platforms, including Facebook, which were circulated among members of the public. The defamation related to serious allegations of fraud, misuse of charitable funds, and misappropriation of funds concerning a registered charity named Wild2Free, which was dedicated to wildlife care. Harvey sought damages for the harm caused to her reputation by these defamatory statements.
The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved determining whether the published material was defamatory, establishing the capacity of the publications to convey the pleaded imputations, and identifying the defendants who were responsible for republication. The court had to decide whether the defendants had published the defamatory material and whether the imputations conveyed by the publications were indeed defamatory. The court also needed to assess the harm suffered by Harvey and whether the defendants had any valid defences under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
The court found that the publications did convey the defamatory imputations to an ordinary reasonable reader. The imputations included serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds by Harvey, which were capable of harming her reputation. The court held that the defendants were responsible for publishing the defamatory material, both through emails and social media comments. The court rejected the defences of justification, triviality, honest opinion, contextual truth, and common law qualified privilege. The court found that the imputations were not justified and that the defendants had failed to prove any of the available defences. The court determined that the plaintiff suffered significant harm, warranting the award of damages. The court granted injunctive relief and awarded general damages, aggravated damages, and costs to the plaintiff.
The final orders included an injunction preventing the defendants from further publishing the defamatory material, an award of general damages for the harm to Harvey's reputation, and an award of aggravated damages reflecting the malice found in the defendants' actions. Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff.