Mallegowda v Sood (No. 6)

In Mallegowda v Sood (No. 6), the plaintiff sought to hold the defendants liable for defamation after they circulated an email to members of the Indian Association of Newcastle, claiming the plaintiff was responsible for publishing an anonymous email accusing the defendants of dishonesty and misuse of community funds. The defendants, in turn, filed a cross-claim asserting that the plaintiff was the actual publisher of the anonymous email. The defendants also raised the defence of justification, contending that the plaintiff was indeed responsible for the creation of the fictitious email account used to send the anonymous email. The case proceeded with the parties representing themselves, leading to significant case management issues. Additionally, the plaintiff’s conduct in pleading guilty to a charge of contempt of court for attempting to influence a witness in these proceedings further complicated the proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants’ email was defamatory, whether it was justified, and whether the plaintiff was the publisher of the anonymous email. The court found that the plaintiff was the publisher of the anonymous email, as evidenced by expert reports and expert testimony indicating that the relevant email addresses were created at the plaintiff’s home and place of work. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendants on the defamation claim and on the cross-claim. The court also dismissed various applications by the parties, including the plaintiff’s application for referral of a party and a witness to the Supreme Court for contempt of court and the defendants’ applications to reopen their case.

The court awarded $5,000 to the cross-claimant for the limited extent of publication of the defamatory material. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ reasonable disbursements, and directed that the parties pay their own costs of vacated hearings and the referral to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff’s applications under s 203 District Court Act 1973 (NSW) and ss 327 and/or s 338(c) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) were refused, as were the defendants’ applications for leave to reopen. Exhibits were retained for 28 days.