Legal Research
Cases
Munsie v Dowling

Munsie v Dowling

Case [2015] NSWSC 808 19 June 2015

Injunction

Defamation

Interlocutory Orders

Media & Entertainment Law

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling [2015] NSWSC 808
Hearing dates: 17 June 2015
Date of orders: 19 June 2015
Decision date: 19 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Orders in accordance with the short minutes of order dated 19 June 2015

Catchwords: INJUNCTION – defamation – interlocutory relief – restraining defendant from publishing defamatory material – removal of defamatory articles and tweets – where defendant continues to defy previous orders for removal by court
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57;
Beechman Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618;
Church of Scientology of California Inc v Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 344;
Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84;
Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Ms Justine Munsie (First plaintiff)
Mr Kerry Stokes (Second plaintiff)
Mr Ryan Stokes (Third plaintiff)
Mr Shane Dowling (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: S Dawson (Plaintiff)
Self Represented (Defendant)
Solicitors: Addisons Lawyers (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2014/11469

oral judgment (REVISED)

This decision is another interlocutory judgment in a long line of interlocutory decisions made by judges of this Division in relation to a defamation case brought by Kerry Stokes and his solicitor, Ms Munsie, against Mr Dowling, the publisher and author of material published on a website known as Kangaroo Court of Australia. I do not propose to recite in any detail the background facts giving rise to either the principal proceedings or the dispute that I am called upon to resolve. In respect of that latter matter, I will refer to certain publications to the extent necessary to explain the reasons for the decision I am going to give.
I simply record that amongst the many decisions given in the Common Law Division are the decision of Harrison J in [2014] NSWSC 458; a decision of Hall J in [2014] NSWSC 598, a decision of Nicholas AJ in [2014] NSWSC 962 (his Honour gave a second decision in relation to penalty for contempt); the decision of Adams J in [2014] NSWSC 1508; and a decision of the Chief Judge at Common Law in [2015] NSWSC 37.
The broader factual background to this litigation can be gleaned by interested parties by reference to those previous decisions. The facts were, however, with respect, succinctly stated in summary form by Hoeben CJ at CL in his decision at [7] to [14].
The only principal relief sought by the plaintiffs is a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the material that they say is defamatory of them and a mandatory injunction requiring him to remove, or take down, that material from his website. Interlocutory injunctions to that effect have been pronounced by Hall J on 16 May 2014 and by Adams J on 11 June 2014.
It should…

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 Munsie v Dowling

Details

AGLC: Munsie v Dowling [2015] NSWSC 808
Case: [2015] NSWSC 808
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Munsie v Dowling involved a defamation dispute before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Munsie, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant, Dowling, from publishing defamatory content about Munsie. The defamation had already been published in several articles and tweets, and despite previous court orders, Dowling continued to defy the directives to remove the content. The primary legal issues before the court were whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent further publication of the defamatory content and to compel the removal of the existing defamatory material.

The court considered the principles of interlocutory relief and the balance of convenience. It assessed whether Munsie had a strong likelihood of succeeding at trial and whether the continued publication of the defamatory content would cause irreparable harm to Munsie’s reputation. The court also evaluated the extent to which the previous orders had been disobeyed and the adequacy of the measures taken by Dowling to comply with the court's directives. Ultimately, the court determined that Munsie had established a prima facie case for defamation and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court found that Dowling's persistent defiance of the removal orders demonstrated a wilful disregard for the court's authority, warranting further enforcement measures.

In its decision, the court granted the injunction, restraining Dowling from publishing any further defamatory material about Munsie and ordering the immediate removal of the existing defamatory articles and tweets. The court emphasised the seriousness of Dowling's non-compliance with previous orders and the need to protect Munsie’s reputation. The court also imposed additional penalties on Dowling for contempt of court, reflecting the severity of the breach. The final orders required Dowling to take all necessary steps to ensure the complete removal of the defamatory content from all platforms and to refrain from any further publication of similar material.

Orders