Legal Research
Cases
Munsie v Dowling

Munsie v Dowling

Case [2014] NSWSC 458 24 April 2014

Media & Entertainment Law

Defamation

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling [2014] NSWSC 458
Hearing dates: 17 April 2014
Decision date: 24 April 2014
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. Decline to make orders 4 and 5 in the plaintiffs' notice of motion filed in Court on 17 April 2014.
2. Stand over the balance of the plaintiffs' notice of motion to 10am on Friday 16 May 2014 before the Duty Judge for directions.
3. Note that the plaintiffs' evidence in support of the contempt application is complete.
4. Direct that any evidence upon which Mr Dowling seeks to rely in response to the Statement of Charge should be filed and served by no later than 4pm Thursday 15 May 2014.
5. Order that the costs of the plaintiffs' application before me be costs in the proceedings.

Catchwords: INJUNCTION - defamation - interlocutory relief - whether threatened publication abuse of process or obstruction of the due administration of justice - whether threat of publication should be restrained as contempt of court
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Cases Cited: ABC v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 at 96; [1972] 1 All ER 1023
Resolute Ltd v Warnes [2000] WASCA 359
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2007] FCA 1062
Y and Z v W [2007] NSWCA 329; (2007) 70 NSWLR 377
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Justine Munsie and Kerry Stokes (Plaintiffs)
Shane Dowling (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A S Dawson (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Addisons (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2014/114469
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The plaintiffs seek orders in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 of a motion filed in Court before me on 17 April 2014, which in full contains prayers for the following relief:

"1. That, on the undertaking of the plaintiffs' solicitor to pay the filing fee, leave be granted to file this motion in Court.

2. That service of this motion and the supporting affidavit of Richard Keegan sworn 16 April 2014 be effected by handing a copy of them to the defendant in Court on 17 April 2014.

xxx@xxx.com

3. If service in accordance with order 2 cannot be effected, personal service in accordance with SCR Pt 55 r 9 be dispensed with and service is to be effected by delivering this motion and the supporting affidavit of Richard Keegan sworn 16 April 2014 to the defendant's email address by 5pm on Thursday 17 April 2014.

4. Subject to order 7, the defendant be restrained, until further order, from publishing

a. the Article and the Twitter Publication (as defined in the affidavit of Justine Melissa Munsie sworn 14 April 2014);

b. the imputations set out in the statement of claim filed herein;

c. the statement of claim filed herein;

d. any matter concerning these proceedings;

e. any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs, or their legal representatives (being the firm Addisons, Martin O'Connor, Richard Keegan…

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 [2014] NSWSC 458
Case: [2014] NSWSC 458
Decision Date: 24 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Munsie v Dowling was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute between the parties centred on the threat of defamatory publications by the defendant, Dowling, against the plaintiff, Munsie. The matter was brought before the court seeking interlocutory relief in the form of an injunction to prevent the threatened publication of the defamatory material. The plaintiff argued that the threatened publication was an abuse of process and an obstruction of the due administration of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the threat of publication should be restrained on the grounds of contempt of court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the threatened publication of defamatory material constituted an abuse of process or an obstruction of justice, warranting an interlocutory injunction. The court had to consider the balance between the plaintiff's right to reputation and the defendant's right to freedom of expression. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the grant of an injunction would be an appropriate remedy to prevent the threatened publication and, if so, whether the criteria for such relief were satisfied. The court was required to balance these considerations in the context of the principles of equity and the law of contempt.

The court held that the threatened publication did indeed constitute an abuse of process and an obstruction of the due administration of justice. The defendant's intention to publish defamatory material about the plaintiff was found to be an attempt to influence the outcome of the proceedings or to undermine the court's process. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the defamation claim and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. The court determined that restraining the threatened publication was necessary to prevent contempt of court. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant from publishing the defamatory material.

The court's final order was that the defendant, Dowling, was restrained from publishing the defamatory material about the plaintiff, Munsie. The injunction was to remain in effect until the final determination of the defamation claim or until further order of the court. The decision emphasised the court's role in protecting the integrity of its processes and the importance of preventing abuse of legal proceedings through the issuance of interlocutory relief.

Orders