Mulholland v Langdon
[2022] VCC 1848
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Defamation List
Case No. CI-21-03303
| Giovanna Mulholland and David John Robert Mulholland | First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Craig Anthony Cuffe Langdon | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Her Honour Judge Clayton | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 & 8 September 2022 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 9 November 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Mulholland & Anor v Langdon | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 1848 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:DEFAMATION
Catchwords: Assessment of damages – Defamatory leaflet published by defendant during local council election – Extent of publication by defendant unknown – Defendant not proven to be author of leaflet - Hurt feelings – Damage to reputation minimal – Aggravated damages awarded –Rational relationship between damages and harm – Permanent injunction not granted.
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited:Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176 – Belbin & Ors v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535 – Praed v Graham (1889) 24 QBD 53 – Broome v Cassel & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 – Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 33 – Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] VSC 521 – Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893 – Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Belbin; Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Marciano (2014) 43 VR 348 – Webster v Brewer (No. 3) [2020] FCA 1343 – Graham v Powell (2014) NSWSC 1319 – Kumar v Ragupathy [2021] VCC 532 – Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692 – Sierocki v Klerck (No 2) [2015] QSC 92.
Judgment:The defendant is to pay $55,000 in damages to the first plaintiff. The defendant is to pay $25,000 in damages to the second plaintiff.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr J Castelan | HM Ong Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Ms L Collaris | NetCounsel Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
1This matter concerns a defamatory leaflet which was distributed in some wards of the City of Banyule during the 2020 local government elections.
2The first plaintiff, Giovanna (Jenny) Mulholland OAM, was a candidate in the Griffin ward at the time. Griffin is a ward within the City of Banyule. The second plaintiff, David John Robert Mulholland, was a candidate in the Nillumbik Shire Council elections at the time. The Nillumbik Shire is adjacent to the City of Banyule.
3The defendant, Craig Langdon, was a candidate in the Olympia ward at the time. Olympia is also a ward within the City of Banyule. He denied publishing the leaflet.
4However, on 5 August 2022 a jury returned a verdict that Mr Langdon published the leaflet which defamed both plaintiffs No claim was made by the plaintiffs that Mr Langdon had authored the leaflet.
5The following imputations were conveyed by the leaflet:
(a) the plaintiffs are members of a far-right extremist organisation;
(b) the plaintiffs are stubbornly determined to create a totalitarian regime on the Banyule City Council;
(c) the plaintiffs have attempted to fraudulently arrange to stack the Liberal Party Ivanhoe Branch membership with people who would vote to support the plaintiffs’ interests and thereby defraud the Liberal Party pre-selection process;
(d) Jenny Mulholland, the first plaintiff, interfered with mayoral elections at the Banyule City Council;
(e) Ms Mulholland treats the council as her political plaything and is a bully;
(f) Ms Mulholland is power-hungry; and
(g) Ms Mulholland dishonestly took money from the Fairy Hills Kindergarten to go on a trip to Perth.
6Pursuant to s21(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act) the assessment of damages falls to me to determine.
7The plaintiffs relied on the following affidavit evidence:
(a) affidavit of Giovanna (Jenny) Mulholland OAM sworn 25 September 2021 (Jenny Mulholland affidavit);
(b) affidavit of David John Mulholland sworn 30 September 2021 (David John Mulholland affidavit);
(c) affidavit of David Perry Mulholland sworn 25 September 2021 (Mulholland Senior affidavit);
(d) affidavit of Jacqueline Raye Douglas sworn 26 September 2021 (Douglas affidavit);
(e) affidavit of Leigh David Wallace OAM sworn 23 September 2021 (first Wallace affidavit) and a second affidavit sworn 19 August 2022 (second Wallace affidavit);
(f) affidavit of Kerry-Anne Benton sworn 25 September 2021 (Benton affidavit);
(g) affidavit of Kevan Charles Stewart Hill sworn 22 September 2021 (Hill affidavit);
(h) affidavit of John Francis McGrath sworn 27 September 2021 (McGrath affidavit);
(i) affidavit of Brigid Therese Joan Meney sworn 29 September 2021 (Meney affidavit);
(j) affidavit of Emma Rebecca Samuel sworn 29 September 2021 (Samuel affidavit);
(k) affidavit of Dr Kenneth McHenry sworn 17 August 2022 (McHenry affidavit);
(l) affidavit of Peter John Clarke sworn 19 August 2022 (Peter Clarke affidavit);
(m) affidavit of Robert Clark sworn 23 August 2022 (Robert Clark affidavit);
(n) affidavit of Bradley John Purvis sworn 24 August 2022 (Purvis affidavit).
8The plaintiffs and David Mulholland Senior also attended court to give additional evidence.
Background
9Ms Mulholland, has lived in Ivanhoe for 42 years.
10Since the mid-1980s, she has been very involved in the local community, including with St John’s Primary School, the Heidelberg-Warringal Lions Club and three local kindergartens.
11She has been an active fundraiser for various overseas communities and a chair of the ‘Wellness Ball’ which raises funds for the Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre.
12She received the Order of Australia Medal in 2019 for services to the community. She says the local area is very important to her and she prides herself on being a person of good ethics and good standing in the community.
13She was a councillor on the Banyule City Council from 2000 to 2016, which included a period as Mayor between 2003 and 2004. She is a member of the Liberal Party and has been a delegate to the State Council and has served in a number of internal party roles. She has been actively involved in both federal and state election campaigns.
14Mr Mulholland, is the son of Ms Mulholland and David Mulholland Senior. He was born in Ivanhoe although he currently lives in Eltham with his wife and daughter. He has a degree in information systems and works as a user experience manager at Flybuys.
15He has been a community advocate for the Banyule Community through the Banyule Ratepayers Action Group (BRAG). He is an active member of the Liberal Party and was appointed to the Federal Seat’s Committee within the Liberal Party. In 2022 he was elected as the Chair of the Policy Forums Committee of the Liberal Party State Assembly.
16He was a Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Jagajaga in the 2016 Federal election. He was the Liberal Party candidate for the Northern Metropolitan Region in the 2014 state election. He was a Liberal Party candidate for the Nillumbik Shire Council in the 2020 local government election. He describes himself as a “moderate” political activist.
Extent of publication
17The leaflet was distributed in a number of wards in the City of Banyule. These included Griffin, Chelsworth, Olympia, Ibbott and Hawdon. The extent of distribution within those wards is unknown. There was evidence that boxes of the leaflets were produced and at least five people – Michael Bradley, Awan Pamungkas, James Gelling, Lachlan Topsom and Harley Williams – distributed the leaflet.
18Maps sent by Mr Langdon to Mr Bradley indicated areas where there was likely to have been distribution of the leaflet, however it is not known whether every house within the marked areas received a leaflet.
19Those maps were sent on 27 to 29 September 2020. Mr Bradley was seen distributing the leaflets on 29 September 2020. Mr Gelling and Mr Pamungkus were seen distributing the leaflets on 12 October 2020. The plaintiffs ask the court to infer the leaflets were being distributed on a daily basis throughout the period from at least 29 September 2020 until the election. However the evidence does not support such an inference.
20The plaintiffs received phone calls from people who had received the leaflet, including people who lived outside the Griffin ward.
21Kevan Hill, Emma Samuel and Leigh Wallace all received the leaflet in the letterbox, as did Ms Samuel’s parents. It was emailed to Sheldon Williams by a friend, who lives in Viewbank.
22I am satisfied the evidence establishes that the leaflet was distributed in various parts of Banyule extending beyond Griffin Ward. I am not satisfied that there was blanket coverage of the area, or that every house within Banyule, or even within Griffin Ward received a leaflet. Mr Bradley appears to have been sporadic in his leafletting efforts on behalf of the defendant.
23The evidence does not establish how often the leaflet was being distributed. Others may have been involved in the distribution of the leaflet. There was no claim made that the defendant was the author of the leaflet. The defendant can only be liable for the publication for which he was responsible.
24Mr Topsom gave evidence that he saw boxes of the leaflet in the defendant’s house around the time of his birthday on 6 September 2020. However, this does not assist me in knowing when the leaflets were distributed.
25The plaintiffs did not become aware of the leaflet until 28 September 2020. It is unlikely if the leaflet was being distributed from 6 September 2020 that it would have taken three weeks for news of its existence to reach the Mulholland family.
26On the evidence, all that has been established is that the defendant published the leaflet on 29 September and 12 October 2020. There is a likelihood that the leaflet was also distributed on 27 and 28 September 2020 as the evidence shows the leaflet was found in locations corresponding to the maps sent by the defendant to Mr Bradley on those days.
27The distribution for which the defendant is liable is limited to distribution by Mr Bradley, Mr Pamungkus and Mr Gelling and includes those areas in the maps sent by the defendant to Mr Bradley.
Grapevine effect
28Acquaintances asked Jacqueline Douglas, a senior member of the Liberal Party and on the executive of the Northern Metro Regional Electorate Council, about the leaflet. It was a topic of conversation and gossip amongst people in the Liberal Party.
29People made comments on Ms Mulholland’s Facebook page which indicated they had seen the leaflet. David Mulholland spent a lot of time removing these comments.
30In Crampton v Nugawela, Mahoney ACJ considered the role of vindication in the assessment of damages for defamation:
The award must be sufficient to ensure that, the damage having spread along the ‘grapevine’ …, and being apt to emerge ‘from its lurking place at some future date’, it was ‘sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge’.[1]
[1] Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176, 194-195.
31In Belbin & Ors v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation, the Court recognised:
The “grapevine” phenomenon, referred to in those cases, is no more than the realistic recognition by the law that, by the ordinary function of human nature, the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom the matter is immediately published.[2]
[2] Belbin & Ors v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535 at [217].
32The leaflet would be of limited interest to anyone who was not a resident of the City of Banyule, involved in local politics or involved with the Liberal Party.
33The fact that it was distributed to a number of letterboxes does not mean that everyone who received it would have read it. As it was distributed in an election campaign when residents tend to get bombarded with political material, many people would likely have put it straight into the recycling bin.
34However, based on the evidence I am satisfied that within local and state Liberal Party circles it was read and discussed, as well as within the local community.
35Mr Mulholland’s previous candidacy in Federal and State seats would have resulted in the leaflet being of greater interest than otherwise might be expected within the Liberal Party.
36There would likely be a grapevine effect amongst people who knew the Mulhollands, or were engaged in local or state politics.
Hurt feelings
37Ms Mulholland says she felt sick when she saw the leaflet. She found it difficult to sleep during the election campaign because of the leaflet. She felt she had no prospects of success in the election, she did not know how she would recover and feared the reputation she had built over many years was irreparably harmed.[3]
[3] Transcript (T) 24.
38She felt embarrassed and humiliated. She felt she was talked about within the community. She was depressed and hurt. She developed migraines which she attributes to the stress and anxiety generated by the leaflet.
39Others gave evidence they had noticed Ms Mulholland was upset and embarrassed by the leaflet.[4] She lost confidence and was distressed.[5]
[4] Meney affidavit, court book (CB) 162; Williams affidavit, CB 56.
[5] Samuel affidavit, CB 169; Benton affidavit CB 97; Hill affidavit, CB 104; David John Mulholland, CB 177.
40She felt paranoid about her safety and had security cameras installed around her house. She thought about moving to another area. She avoided going to the local shops and having a chat with community members. She says she will never run for office again.
41David Mulholland says he felt furious when he saw the leaflet. He was concerned for his mother. He was depressed and anxious. He felt he had no chance of winning his election because of the leaflet.
42He was hurt and felt his capacity to advocate on issues in the local area was diminished because of the damage done to his reputation. He fears the false allegations made will always be there to be weaponised against him if he runs for office again. He worries the leaflet will affect his employment prospects.
43Both plaintiffs gave viva voce evidence about the significant hurt and distress the leaflet had caused. I had no difficulty accepting that evidence and am satisfied that for each plaintiff the leaflet was distressing and upsetting and caused hurt and embarrassment.
44In the absence of medical evidence, I do not accept any causal link between the migraines Ms Mulholland suffers and the publication of the leaflet.
Damage to the plaintiffs’ reputations
45The plaintiffs say the leaflet caused actual harm to their reputations.
46Ms Mulholland was told by someone called Margaret Kerby that a political rival had said the Mulholland name ‘is now mud’. Five or six people in the Liberal Party asked her about the leaflet . During the campaign, local residents asked her about the leaflet. People sitting nearby at a local pub whispered about her.
47Ms Mulholland believes the leaflet had a significant effect on the outcome of the Griffin election. She points to anomalies in her ward in the allocation of preferences which did not follow the usual ‘how to vote’ preferences of other candidates. Despite the plaintiffs’ fervent belief that the leaflet was the primary cause of Ms Mulholland’s unsuccessful election campaign, I can make no such finding. She had been unsuccessful in her previous election campaign well prior to the leaflet and there is no evidence that her political fortunes had turned.
48The defendant submits there has been no damage to the reputations of the plaintiffs.
49Ms Mulholland is currently the President of the Heidelberg Rotary Club. She remains a leading member of the Liberal Party and continues to play a major role in Federal and State election campaigns. She is a delegate to State Council, the party’s governing body. She is a delegate to the State Assembly. She is Chair of the party’s Membership and Branch Development Committee and serves in other internal roles. Some of these are positions she was elected to by party members.
50Mr Mulholland also continues to play a role in the Liberal Party. He was appointed to the party’s Federal Seats Committee which has important roles in advising on all matters relating to federal electorates and their campaigns, including identifying, encouraging, and mentoring prospective candidates. He is also the Chair of the Policy Forums Committee of the party’s State Assembly, a position to which he was elected by party members.
51The defendant submits the affidavit material also discloses no actual harm to the reputation of the plaintiffs. While damage is presumed, damage in this case is nominal.
52I accept that people who did not know the Mulhollands or were not engaged in politics at a local level may have been swayed by the imputations conveyed in the leaflet. However because of the very active role Ms Mulholland, in particular, had played in local affairs over two decades, it is likely that many people already had a fixed view about the Mulhollands and their politics which would be unlikely to be significantly swayed by the contents of the leaflet.
53Within the Liberal Party there would likely be those who, while not necessarily believing the contents of the leaflet, would consider it made the Mulhollands less appealing candidates for future political office. Being associated with any sort of controversy, however unfounded, might be damaging to one’s political aspirations. Accordingly it is understandable the plaintiffs considered it necessary to bring these proceedings and to ‘nail the lie’.
54However both plaintiffs continue to play active roles in the Liberal Party, including both having been elected to internal positions by their peers, which suggests any adverse views held by party members either do not continue, or are not significant.
Aggravated damages
55A plaintiff may be entitled to aggravated damages to compensate for the increased hurt and humiliation experienced as a result of a defendant’s conduct up to the date of judgment.[6]
[6]See for example Praed v Graham (1889) 24 QBD 53, 55 (Lord Escher MR); Broome v Cassel & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027, 1071 (Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC); Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 33, [37] (Applegarth J).
56The factors to be considered include a failure to publish a retraction or apology that amounts to a continuing assertion of the defamatory imputations, whether a defence of justification has been pleaded with reckless indifference as to its relevance, and where the defendant’s conduct lacks bona fides, is unjustifiable or improper.[7]
[7]Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] VSC 521, [84] – [88].
57The plaintiffs claim the defendant has aggravated the damages and rely on the following:
(a) the defendant published the words for the sole purpose of injuring the reputations of each of the plaintiffs;
(b) the defendant published the words anonymously and denied publishing the words at all times;
(c) the plaintiffs had to bring proceedings seeking preliminary discovery against the defendant and in those proceedings, the defendant was found to have committed contempt of court in that he failed to deliver his devices to the Court when ordered to do so;
(d) the defendant has refused to apologise;
(e) the defendant gave the following evidence during the trial:
(i)when asked about the council election, Mr Langdon stated:
And when you say there are number of lies going around, who put out lies? --- BRAG and the Mulhollands.[8]
[8] T 138.
(ii)when speaking about dealing with Ms Mulholland in a previous context at the council, Mr Langdon stated:
… I must admit, I had made the – after being approached, I don't like breaking my word. I can – totally I don't like doing it. But I put myself in Jenny's point of view. If Jenny was - had this deal, and someone approached her she would break – I believe she would break her word.[9]
(iii)when speaking about why he wrote to the Liberal Party to advocate that Mr Langdon ought not be pre-selected to run for a seat, Mr Langdon (who was never a member of the Liberal Party) gave the following evidence:
And what was the purpose of writing to them?---To stop David Junior becoming pre-selected. And why did you want to do that?---I didn't think he was up to it, and I don't believe the morals were up to it at all.[10]
[9] T 166.
[10] T 167.
58The plaintiffs claim the defendant’s evidence that he believed Ms Mulholland ‘would have’ broken her word and that Mr Mulholland’s morals were not ‘up to’ being elected for pre-selection aggravated the hurt they experienced.
59I am satisfied there is a basis for concluding the defendant’s conduct has aggravated the damage to each plaintiff to a modest degree.
Assessment of damages
60There are three purposes for an award of damages where a plaintiff establishes the necessary elements of defamation:
(a) consolation for personal distress and hurt caused by the publication(s);
(b) reparation for the harm done to the person’s reputation; and
(c) vindication of reputation.
61Section 34 of the Act requires an award of damages to bear a ‘rational relationship’ to the harm sustained by the plaintiff. The assessment is an intuitive, evaluative process conducted at large, subject to the provisions of the Act.[11]
[11]Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893, [428].
62The plaintiffs have both taken part in public life by standing for elected office.
63In Palmer v McGowan (No 5), Lee J stated:
Political figures occupy a special place in our system of representative and responsible government. Insofar as a subset of political figures (serving members of Parliament) are concerned, this special place carries with it protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. Political figures more generally have a position which allows them to further their agenda, and potentially influence the course of economic and social policy and current events. But balanced against these considerable privileges are the costs or downsides of a political profile, including the reality that such figures must expect a degree of public criticism, fair or unfair, not usually visited upon other members of the public.[12]
[12]Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893, [524].
64The defendant submits nominal damages in line with the award in Palmer are appropriate in this case.
65Local council is not the same as state or federal office and a local councillor would not automatically expect the ‘fair and unfair criticism’ other political figures might. Importantly local councillors are not necessarily professional politicians and often maintain other jobs while undertaking their role as a councillor. They do not have the same protections afforded to those sitting in parliament.
66However the fact that both the plaintiffs were standing in local elections as members of a major political party does mean that there will inevitably those whose views of the plaintiffs are formed solely on the basis of the political party they represent, rather than their personal characteristics. For those persons, it is unlikely that the leaflet had any impact on their views about the plaintiffs, whether positive or negative.
67There are well-established principles for assessing damages in defamation, such principles helpfully summarised by John Dixon J in Wilson v Bauer Media:[13]
(a) Damages should provide consolation for hurt feelings, damage to reputation and vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation;[14]
(b) Damages ought to reflect the high value which the law places upon reputation and, in particular, upon the reputation of those whose work and life depends upon their honesty, integrity and judgement;[15]
(c) The gravity of the libel and the social standing of the parties are relevant to assessing the quantum of damages necessary to vindicate the plaintiff. The award must be sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge;
(d) There must be an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded;
(e) The extent of publication and the seriousness of the defamatory sting are pertinent considerations;
(f) In determining the damage done to a plaintiff’s reputation, the Court should also take into account the ‘grapevine’ effect arising from the publication;[16]
(g) It is well accepted that injury to feelings may constitute a significant part of the harm sustained by a plaintiff;[17] and
(h) Aggravated damages are a form of compensatory damages and, where appropriate, form part of the general damages awarded to a successful plaintiff for non-economic loss, designed to reflect aggravation caused to a plaintiff’s hurt or injury by reason of some conduct of the defendant.
[13]Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521, [59].
[14] Belbin & Ors v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535, [242]
[15] Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521 citing Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR.
[16]Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Belbin; Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corp v Marciano (2014) 43 VR 348, 388-390.
[17]Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521 citing Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR, 71.
68There are numerous cases in which political figures have been defamed and awarded damages. The amounts of those awards vary considerably.[18]
[18]See, for example, Webster v Brewer (No. 3) [2020] FCA 1343; Graham v Powell (2014) NSWSC 1319; Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893; Kumar v Ragupathy [2021] VCC 532).
69Similar cases can be of assistance to the Court in determining the parameters within which appropriate awards of damages might fall, but each case turns on its own facts.
70In this case, the plaintiffs did not have roles in state or federal government such that they could expect to be the targets of such allegations. The harm done to them was done in their local community, including the community of the Liberal Party. However the publications were not in a newspaper or on the internet, the spread of the publication was limited and many people seeing the leaflet would likely have thrown it away as junk mail, or taken no notice of the allegations made. While harm is presumed, it is unlikely that significant or sustained damage was done to the plaintiff’s reputation within either the local community or the Liberal Party.
71The most significant harm was to the plaintiffs’ feelings. I accept that their hurt, embarrassment and distress was real and continues. I accept that more of the allegations were aimed at Ms Mulholland and as a result, her distress was greater than Mr Mulholland’s .
72The damages must bear a rational relationship to the harm done. I also consider it important to ‘nail the lie’ and to ensure anyone who saw or heard about the publication is persuaded of its baselessness by the plaintiffs’ successful claim, vidniciation before a jury, and award of damages.
73I consider an amount of $55,000, including aggravated damages, is an appropriate award of damages for Ms Mulholland, and an amount of $25,000, including aggravated damages, is an appropriate award for Mr Mulholland.
74The plaintiffs seek orders for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing any material, or any imputations, to the same effect as the publication referred to in the leaflet.
75Injunctions are only issued when some additional factor is evident, usually an apprehension that the defendant may, by reason of irrationality, defiance, disrespect of the Court’s judgment or otherwise, publish allegations similar to those found to be defamatory[19] or when the defendant’s persistence in making repeated defamatory publications has the flavour of a vendetta.[20]
[19] Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692, [99]; Sierocki v Klerck (No 2) [2015] QSC 92, [52] - [53], 154.
[20] Graham v Powell (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1319, [45], [48]; Sierocki v Klerek (No 2) [2015] QSC 92.
76The defendant has demonstrated disrespect of court orders for which he has been duly punished. However there is no evidence the defendant wrote or produced the leaflet, only that he published it by having it distributed through Mr Bradley and Mr Gelling. There is no evidence the defendant has made repeated defamatory statements about the plaintiffs, or that he will likely do so in future.
77I am not satisfied there is evidence of a vendetta. I am not persuaded it is appropriate to make orders for permanent injunctions.
78I will hear the parties on the appropriate orders as to costs.
0
12
0