King v Greenwood
Case
•
[2021] NSWDC 228
•03 June 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
King v Greenwood [2021] NSWDC 228
[2021] NSWDC 228
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Interlocutory Injunctions
-
Abuse of Process
-
Interlocutory Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
King v Greenwood [2021] NSWDC 228
Most Recent Citation
Agius v Hannaford [2025] ACTMC 19
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Agius v Hannaford
[2025] ACTMC 19
Agius v Hannaford
[2023] ACTMC 5
Agius v Hannaford
[2025] ACTMC 19
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
2
Allan v The Migration Institute of Australia Ltd
[2012] NSWSC 965
Doe v Dowling
[2017] NSWSC 1793