Mickle v Farley

Case [2013] NSWDC 295

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295
Hearing dates:29/11/2013
Decision date: 29 November 2013
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Elkaim SC DCJ
Decision:

Verdict for the plaintiff for $105,000 with costs.

Catchwords: Assessment of damages, defamation via Twitter and Facebook.
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Christine Mickle (Plaintiff)
Andrew Farley (Defendant)
Representation: A T S Dawson (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)
Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)
File Number(s):2013/00174366
Publication restriction:No

ex tempore Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff commenced this action in defamation by a Statement of Claim filed on 6 June 2013. A Defence was filed and later an Amended Defence.

  1. The Amended Defence was struck out by her Honour, Judge Olsson, on 18 October this year. In addition her Honour entered judgment for the plaintiff and set the matter down for the assessment of damages today.

  1. In considering the assessment of damages I have heard from two witnesses and also read a number of affidavits. One of the affidavits is effectively an expert's report. The other affidavits go to the plaintiff's reputation and the hurt that has been caused by the defamatory comments.

  1. The defendant is a young man, now apparently aged 20, and was at the time of the publications one year out of high school. He had completed the Higher School Certificate in 2011 at Orange High School. In addition to him attending that high school his father was a teacher there and occupied the position of head teacher from about the year 2000 in the music and arts department. The defendant's father was described as a gentle man who had a number of health issues.

  1. The plaintiff was also a teacher at the school and was concerned mostly with music. She is now 58 years of age. She is married and has three children. By the time the events in this case occurred she had given many years of devotion to students and to teaching generally. She had established a widespread reputation not only in Orange but through a wide country area regarding her capacity as a teacher, her concern for her students and her devotion to the pursuit of excellence in teaching. This excellence was well known to the then principal of the school (Mrs Angus) who gave oral evidence before me and had been aware of the plaintiff's reputation before she joined the school as principal.

  1. In November 2012 Mrs Angus was retiring. Such was the esteem in which the plaintiff was held that students approached Mrs Angus and asked if part of her retirement function could be devoted to the re-naming of the music centre as the "Mrs Mickle Music Centre" in honour of the plaintiff and her history and devotion to her students and classes.

  1. I will return briefly to the defendant and in particular his father. His father left the school in 2008 in order to attend to personal issues. As a result of him leaving, the plaintiff, perhaps to some degree…

Continue reading Mickle v Farley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295
Case
[2013] NSWDC 295
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mickle v Farley involved the plaintiff, Mickle, suing the defendant, Farley, for defamation caused by comments made on social media platforms, specifically Twitter and Facebook. The defamatory statements included allegations of Mickle committing perjury and being involved in criminal activities, which were posted by Farley and subsequently shared by numerous individuals, significantly impacting Mickle's reputation. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate assessment of damages for the defamation.

The primary legal issues centred on the quantification of damages for defamation in the context of modern social media. The court needed to consider the extent of the harm caused by the defamatory posts, the number of people who saw or could potentially see the posts, and the immediacy and permanence of the defamatory content. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the award of damages should reflect the viral nature of social media, where content can be shared rapidly and widely.

The court held that the defamatory statements were serious and caused significant harm to Mickle's reputation, warranting a substantial award of damages. The court found that the viral potential of social media required a higher damages assessment than traditional media. It was determined that the defamatory posts were highly injurious and had been viewed by a large number of people, leading to a significant impact on Mickle's professional and personal life. The court awarded Mickle $105,000 in damages, along with costs.

The court also emphasised the importance of considering the unique characteristics of social media when assessing defamation damages. The widespread and rapid dissemination of defamatory content on platforms like Twitter and Facebook necessitated a higher damages award compared to traditional media. The final orders included a verdict for the plaintiff for $105,000 and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the plaintiff for $105,000 with costs.

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.