Jabbie v Gbangaye

Case [2025] WASC 73


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

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Jabbie v Gbangaye [2025] WASC 73
Case
[2025] WASC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jabbie v Gbangaye was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a podcast that was livestreamed on a Facebook page, which was later recorded and uploaded onto the same Facebook page. The content of the podcast conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff, including the allegation that they were complicit in a murder. The podcast was published extensively to a community of which the plaintiff was a member. The plaintiff brought an action for defamation against the defendant, who was the creator and publisher of the podcast.

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.