King v Greenwood - [2021] NSWDC 228

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: King and Anor v Greenwood [2021] NSWDC 228
Hearing dates: 03 June 2021
Date of orders: 03 June 2021
Decision date: 03 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
Orders:
(1)   Time for the defendant to file a defence extended from 20 May 2021 to Monday 14 June 2021.
(2)   Matter stood over to the Defamation List for directions Thursday 17 June 2021 at 9am, on which date the plaintiffs propose to seek a Self–Executing Order if no defence has been filed.
(3)   The plaintiff is to notify the defendant of these orders by email by 5pm today.
(4)   Costs reserved.
Notice of Motion Orders:
By way of an interlocutory injunction and until further orders, and upon provisions by the plaintiffs of the usual undertaking as to damages, pursuant to section 46(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW):
(1)   The defendant be restrained by himself, his servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published the first matter complained of, namely the Facebook post, “Tayloring Your Political Bribes”, or matters substantially to the same effect as such matter on the worldwide web (including Facebook and YouTube) or otherwise.
(2)   The defendant is restrained from publishing on the worldwide web or otherwise any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations contained in the Statement of Claim and set out below:
a)   The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the first plaintiff’s own personal advantage;
b)   The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, to improperly precure, by deception, Federal Government grant schemes that would financially benefit the first plaintiff’s company;
c)   The first plaintiff has committed serious and indictable criminal offences by giving a monetary bribe to an elected Member of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia;
d)   The first plaintiff has been the recipient of illegally obtained funds from taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Australia;
e)   The first plaintiff has deceptively attempted to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;
f)   The first plaintiff conspired with the second plaintiff to deceptively attempt to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;
g)   The first plaintiff published a news article on the front page of LatteLife Wingecarribee newspaper that had fabricated information against a political candidate running for the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;
h)   The first plaintiff has engaged in illegal and/or corrupt actions and/or business practices on previous occasions;
i)   The second plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the second plaintiff’s own personal advantage;
j)   The second plaintiff has made monetary…

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 v Greenwood

Details

AGLC: King v Greenwood [2021] NSWDC 228
Case: [2021] NSWDC 228
Decision Date: 03 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of King v Greenwood, the plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing defamatory material concerning the plaintiff on social media. The application was made in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had published a series of posts on Facebook that made serious defamatory imputations against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's business.

The court was required to decide whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the defendant from continuing to publish the defamatory material. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's continued publication of the defamatory material was causing and would continue to cause the plaintiff serious harm, and that an interlocutory injunction was necessary to prevent further harm. The defendant did not file a defence or attend court to oppose the making of the orders.

The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court noted that the defendant had continued to publish the defamatory material despite the proceedings being commenced, and that the plaintiff had suffered serious harm as a result of the publication. The court also noted that the defendant had failed to file a defence or attend court to oppose the making of the orders. The court therefore granted the application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant from publishing the defamatory material and from publishing any other material concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations set out in the Statement of Claim.

The court further extended the time for the defendant to file a defence, stood over the matter to the Defamation List for directions, and reserved costs. The plaintiff was to notify the defendant of these orders by email by 5pm on the day of the hearing. The court emphasised that any application to set aside the orders must be by Notice of Motion supported by affidavit evidence, returnable for the next directions hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders:

(1) Time for the defendant to file a defence extended from 20 May 2021 to Monday 14 June 2021.

(2) Matter stood over to the Defamation List for directions Thursday 17 June 2021 at 9am, on which date the plaintiffs propose to seek a Self–Executing Order if no defence has been filed.

(3) The plaintiff is to notify the defendant of these orders by email by 5pm today.

(4) Costs reserved.

Notice of Motion Orders:

By way of an interlocutory injunction and until further orders, and upon provisions by the plaintiffs of the usual undertaking as to damages, pursuant to section 46(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW):

(1) The defendant be restrained by himself, his servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published the first matter complained of, namely the Facebook post, “Tayloring Your Political Bribes”, or matters substantially to the same effect as such matter on the worldwide web (including Facebook and YouTube) or otherwise.

(2) The defendant is restrained from publishing on the worldwide web or otherwise any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations contained in the Statement of Claim and set out below:

a) The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the first plaintiff’s own personal advantage;

b) The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, to improperly precure, by deception, Federal Government grant schemes that would financially benefit the first plaintiff’s company;

c) The first plaintiff has committed serious and indictable criminal offences by giving a monetary bribe to an elected Member of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia;

d) The first plaintiff has been the recipient of illegally obtained funds from taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Australia;

e) The first plaintiff has deceptively attempted to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;

f) The first plaintiff conspired with the second plaintiff to deceptively attempt to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;

g) The first plaintiff published a news article on the front page of LatteLife Wingecarribee newspaper that had fabricated information against a political candidate running for the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election;

h) The first plaintiff has engaged in illegal and/or corrupt actions and/or business practices on previous occasions;

i) The second plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the second plaintiff’s own personal advantage;

j) The second plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, to improperly precure, by deception, Federal Government grant schemes that would financially benefit the second plaintiff’s company;

k) The second plaintiff has committed serious and indictable criminal offences by giving a monetary bribe to an elected Member of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia;

l) The second plaintiff has been the recipient of illegally obtained money from taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Australia;

m) The second plaintiff has deceptively attempted to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during 2019 Federal Election.

n) The second plaintiff has engaged in illegal and/or corrupt actions and/or business practices on previous occasions.

o) 48 hours after service of these orders, the defendant take all reasonable steps to remove forthwith from the worldwide web (including Facebook) all matter that he has published, posted or uploaded concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations set out in order 2(a) to 2(n) above.

(3) Both the plaintiff and the court will notify the defendant of these orders by service on the defendant at the email address of [redacted] by 5pm today.

(4) Costs reserved.

(5) Any application to set aside these orders must be by Notice of Motion supported by affidavit evidence, returnable for next directions hearing on 17 June 2021.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	King and Anor v Greenwood [2021] NSWDC 228
Hearing dates:	03 June 2021
Date of orders:	03 June 2021
Decision date:	03 June 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	Orders: (1) Time for the defendant to file a defence extended from 20 May 2021 to Monday 14 June 2021. (2) Matter stood over to the Defamation List for directions Thursday 17 June 2021 at 9am, on which date the plaintiffs propose to seek a Self–Executing Order if no defence has been filed. (3) The plaintiff is to notify the defendant of these orders by email by 5pm today. (4) Costs reserved. Notice of Motion Orders: By way of an interlocutory injunction and until further orders, and upon provisions by the plaintiffs of the usual undertaking as to damages, pursuant to section 46(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW): (1) The defendant be restrained by himself, his servants or agents, from publishing or causing to be published the first matter complained of, namely the Facebook post, “Tayloring Your Political Bribes”, or matters substantially to the same effect as such matter on the worldwide web (including Facebook and YouTube) or otherwise. (2) The defendant is restrained from publishing on the worldwide web or otherwise any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations contained in the Statement of Claim and set out below: a) The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the first plaintiff’s own personal advantage; b) The first plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, to improperly precure, by deception, Federal Government grant schemes that would financially benefit the first plaintiff’s company; c) The first plaintiff has committed serious and indictable criminal offences by giving a monetary bribe to an elected Member of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia; d) The first plaintiff has been the recipient of illegally obtained funds from taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Australia; e) The first plaintiff has deceptively attempted to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election; f) The first plaintiff conspired with the second plaintiff to deceptively attempt to influence the election result of the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election; g) The first plaintiff published a news article on the front page of LatteLife Wingecarribee newspaper that had fabricated information against a political candidate running for the Federal District of Hume, during the 2019 Federal Election; h) The first plaintiff has engaged in illegal and/or corrupt actions and/or business practices on previous occasions; i) The second plaintiff has made monetary bribes to an elected Commonwealth of Australia Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament, The Honourable Angus Taylor MP, for the second plaintiff’s own personal advantage; j) The second plaintiff has made monetary…