Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd - [2011] NSWSC 999

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] NSWSC 999
Hearing dates: 17/08/2011
Decision date: 31 August 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:

The defendants to pay the plaintiff's damages in the amount of $30,000.
The defendants to pay the plaintiffs costs.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - assessment of damages following default judgment - matters complained of published on Internet
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Limitation Act 1969
Cases Cited: Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; 216 CLR 327
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Keith Leech (Plaintiff)
Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd (1st Defendant)
Gregory Oran Watson (2nd Defendant)
Representation: B Goldsmith (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
No appearance for defendants
Goldsmiths Lawyers (Plaintiff)
No appearance for defendants

File Number(s): 2010/239633

Judgment

HER HONOUR : By statement of claim dated 19 July 2010 the plaintiff claims damages in defamation, including aggravated damages, arising out of the publication by the defendants of defamatory commentary concerning him on three different Internet websites.

The first matter complained of was published in May 2008 and the last matter complained of in 5 February 2010.

Each of the websites was concerned generally with solar energy including the availability of solar energy services or products of various kinds.

In 2007 the plaintiff was interested in acquiring the SunCube or the SunBall, the particular solar devices that were being promoted for sale by the defendants (and for distribution, assembly and manufacture under licence by them) to supplement a small solar system installed on his country property. He was also interested in seeking employment with the defendant company. Between 2002 and 2006 the plaintiff owned a business which sold solar hot water systems and associated solar energy equipment. He has not worked since that time.

In about June 2007, upon a closer examination of the devices being promoted by the defendants and their industry practices, the plaintiff expressed his concerns about the legitimacy of the defendants' business on a blog on the defendants' website. He said he did this with a view to researching the views of others as to the suitability of the SunCube and sharing his own views. The defendants' reaction to the plaintiff's criticisms, and the online dialogue that it generated, comprise the matters complained of.

On 9 May 2011 McCallum J entered judgment for the plaintiff after the defendants failed to file a defence in accordance with orders made by Nicholas J on 4 April 2011.

On 17 August 2011 the proceedings were listed before me for an assessment of damages. There was no appearance for either of the defendants. Accordingly, the proceedings were conducted ex parte.

At the commencement of the hearing the plaintiff's solicitor limited the claim for damages to five of the six matters complained of in the statement of claim. He also acknowledged that the claim is limited to damage suffered by the plaintiff from 19 July 2009, having regard to the operation of s 14B of the

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 Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 999
Case: [2011] NSWSC 999
Decision Date: 31 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leech v Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Leech, sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant, Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd. The defamatory statements were published on the internet and pertained to Leech's professional reputation. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate assessment of damages following a default judgment entered against the defendant.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the calculation of damages for defamation in the context of internet publication. This involved assessing the extent of the harm caused by the defamatory statements to Leech's reputation, the reach and impact of the internet publication, and the appropriate quantification of general damages. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any mitigating factors or special damages that should be taken into account.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the nature and severity of the defamatory statements, their dissemination on the internet, and the potential long-term harm to Leech's professional reputation. The court considered evidence regarding the impact on Leech's career and the potential for ongoing harm. The court held that the defamatory statements were serious and had caused significant damage to Leech's reputation. The court awarded Leech damages for the harm caused, considering both the immediate and potential long-term effects. The court also considered the reach and permanence of internet publication in assessing the quantum of damages.

The court ordered Green & Gold Energy Pty Ltd to pay Leech the assessed damages, along with costs of the proceeding. The judgment underscores the serious consequences of defamatory statements published on the internet and the need for careful consideration of the unique factors involved in such cases.

Orders