JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION: JABBIE -v- GBANGAYE [2025] WASC 73
CORAM: TOTTLE J
HEARD: 7 - 8 OCTOBER 2024
DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2025
FILE NO/S: CIV 1942 of 2022
BETWEEN: CHARLENE EMINATA JABBIE
Plaintiff
AND
SUSANNA GBANGAYE
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Podcast livestreamed on Facebook page - Recordings of podcast uploaded onto Facebook page - Podcast conveyed defamatory imputations including imputation plaintiff complicit in murder - Podcast published extensively to community of which the plaintiff a member - Justification defence unsuccessful - General and special damages awarded - Injunction granted to restrain further publication - Turns on own facts
Defamation - Defences - No defence that imputations repeat allegations or rumours circulated by third parties
Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Plaintiff | : | In Person |
| Defendant | : | In Person |
Solicitors:
| Plaintiff | : | In Person |
| Defendant | : | In Person |
Cases referred to in decision:
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2009] NSWCA 9
Armstrong v McIntosh [No 4] [2020] WASC 31
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] UKHL 3; AC 1027
Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 33; [2016] 1Qd R 89
Costello & Abbott v Random House Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 137 ACTR 1
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291
King v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 613
Lazos v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [2024] WASC 238
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; (2009) 238 CLR 460
Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Selecta Homes & Building Co Pty Ltd v Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2001] SASC 140; (2001) 79 SASR 451
Stocker v Stocker [2020] AC 593
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Trkulja v Google [2018] HCA 25; (2017) 263 CLR 144
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331
Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521
Wright v De Kauwe [No 2] [2024] WASCA 51
TOTTLE J:
Introduction
In this defamation action the plaintiff claims she was defamed in a podcast livestreamed on Facebook by the defendant, a self‑styled 'talk‑show host'. The podcast concerned the murder of Ms Janet Dweh.[1] It was livestreamed on 30 October 2021. Some three weeks earlier the plaintiff's husband, Mr Hassan Jabbie (from whom the plaintiff was separated) had been arrested and charged with Ms Dweh's murder. In June 2024, after a trial before…
Continue reading Jabbie v Gbangaye
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jabbie v Gbangaye [2025] WASC 73
- Case
- [2025] WASC 73
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the podcast conveyed defamatory imputations, and if so, whether the defendant had a valid defence. The court found that the podcast did indeed convey defamatory imputations and that the defence of justification was unsuccessful. The court also rejected the argument that the imputations were merely repeating allegations or rumours circulated by third parties.
In reaching its decision, the court held that the defamatory imputations were not protected by any form of fair comment or honest opinion. The court found that the podcast was published extensively to the community, which included the plaintiff, and therefore the imputations were likely to cause significant harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The court awarded the plaintiff both general and special damages, as well as an injunction to restrain the defendant from further publishing the podcast. The court held that the defence that the imputations repeated allegations or rumours circulated by third parties was not available to the defendant as it did not negate the defamatory nature of the imputations. The court emphasised that each case turns on its own facts, and that the defence was not available in this instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.