FOR PAWS AND FEATHERS PTY LTD TRADING AS BICTON VETERINARY CLINIC
Third Plaintiff
AND
NATASHA JANE PETERSON
First Defendant
JACK HIGGS
Second Defendant
V-GAN BOOTY PTY LTD
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation – Publications made by way of Facebook Post – Animal rights activists – Plaintiffs operated veterinary clinic – Imputations in relation to personal and professional reputations of plaintiffs
Defamation – Defences – Honest opinion – Whether defamatory matter expression of opinion – Whether defamatory matter related to a matter of public interest – Whether defamatory matter based on proper material
Defamation – Defences – Common law qualified privilege – Whether reciprocity of interest – Malice
Defamation – Defences – Statutory qualified privilege – Whether interest or apparent interest – Reasonableness of conduct –
[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 McIntosh v Peterson [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McIntosh v Peterson [No 2] [2024] WASC 428
Case
[2024] WASC 428
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of McIntosh v Peterson [No 2], the plaintiffs, operators of a veterinary clinic, sought relief from the Supreme Court of Victoria for defamatory statements made by the defendant, an animal rights activist, on Facebook. The statements impugned the plaintiffs' personal and professional reputations, leading to claims of defamation. The plaintiffs also alleged injurious falsehood, trespass, and civil conspiracy. The defendant argued various defences to the defamation claim, including honest opinion, common law and statutory qualified privilege, justification, and malice. The defendant contested the claims of injurious falsehood, trespass, and civil conspiracy, asserting that no actionable wrongs had occurred.
The court had to determine whether the Facebook posts constituted an expression of opinion protected under the honest opinion defence, and if the posts related to a matter of public interest, or were based on proper material. Additionally, the court examined whether the posts were protected by common law or statutory qualified privilege, considering reciprocity of interest and reasonableness of conduct. The court also assessed whether the imputations were substantially true and if they were justified. The court further considered the extent of publication and republication, the effect on the plaintiffs, and the presence of aggravating circumstances. The court had to decide if the plaintiffs suffered actual damage from the injurious falsehoods, if an implied licence existed and whether it was revoked, and if exemplary damages were appropriate. Finally, the court had to determine if there was a civil conspiracy or an unlawful means conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the Facebook posts were not protected by the honest opinion defence, nor were they related to a matter of public interest or based on proper material. The court held that the posts were not protected by common law or statutory qualified privilege due to the absence of reciprocity of interest and unreasonable conduct. The court found that the imputations were not substantially true, and therefore, the justification defence failed. The court awarded damages for defamation, considering the extent of publication and republication, the effect on the plaintiffs, and the presence of aggravating circumstances. The court found that the plaintiffs did not suffer actual damage from the injurious falsehoods and that there was no civil conspiracy or unlawful means conspiracy. The court did not award exemplary damages or special damage for the cost of mitigation. The court found no evidence of an implied licence or its revocation.