DEFAMATION – plaintiffs are publishers of local newspapers – defendant supplied labour services to plaintiffs as graphic designer until falling out with them – defendant published Facebook post and sent email to former person who supplied labouring services to the plaintiffs - whether plaintiffs identified - whether defamatory imputations conveyed – whether statutory defence of triviality applies – Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 33 - claim for damages – claim for permanent injunction – significance of defendant’s undertaking
Mr C King (plaintiff) Mrs J King (plaintiff) Mr A Greenwood (defendant)
Representation:
Mr C King, in person Mr A Greenwood, in…
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 King & Anor v Greenwood
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
King & Anor v Greenwood [2022] NSWDC 61
Case
[2022] NSWDC 61
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs, King and another, are publishers of local newspapers. The defendant, Greenwood, was a former graphic designer for the plaintiffs. The dispute arose when the defendant posted defamatory content on Facebook and sent an email to a former employee of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation and a permanent injunction against the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues were whether the plaintiffs were identified in the defendant's communications, whether the communications conveyed defamatory imputations, and whether the statutory defence of triviality applied under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The court found that the plaintiffs were identified in the defendant's communications, and the imputations conveyed were defamatory. The court considered the statutory defence of triviality, ultimately determining that the defence did not apply. The court granted the plaintiffs' claims for damages and a permanent injunction. The significance of the defendant's undertaking, which was not to repeat the defamatory statements, was also taken into account in the court's decision.