Legal Research
Cases
Munsie v Dowling (No 10)

Munsie v Dowling (No 10)

Case [2018] NSWSC 709 21 May 2018

Defamation

Permanent Injunctions

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 709
Hearing dates: 24 April 2017
Date of orders: 21 May 2018
Decision date: 21 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   The defendant is hereby permanently restrained from publishing:

(a)   the February 2014 article (the Corby Article);
(b)   the February 2014 tweet (the Corby Tweet);
(c)   the 31 May 2014 article (the Private Communications Article);
(d)   the 3 June 2014 sign (the Bribery Sign);
(e)   the 3 June 2014 clip (the Bribery Film Clip);
(f)   the 3 June 2014 clip (the Addisons Film Clip);
(g)   the 5 June 2014 clip (the Dawson Film Clip);
(h)   the 8 June 2014 article (the Corruption Article);
(i)   the 16 April 2014 article (the Suppression Order Article);
(j)   the 13 February 2015 email (the Relationship Email);
(k)   the 13 February 2015 article (the Relationship Article);
(l)   the 13 February 2015 video (the Relationship Video);
(m)   the 13-16 February 2015 tweets (the Relationship tweets);
(n)   the 29 March 2015 article (the FOI Article);
(o)   the 10 May 2015 article (the Corruption Article);
(p)   the 4 May 2015 tweets (the Stokes tweets);
(q)   the 31 May 2015 tweet (the Judicial Favours tweet);
(r)   the 31 May 2015 tweet (the Judicial Favours article);
(s)   the 14 June 2015 article (the ICAC Article); and
(t)   the website blogs (the Addisons/Capilano Blogs).

(2)   The defendant is hereby permanently restrained from publishing any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as those publications listed in Order 1;

(3)   The defendant is hereby permanently restrained from publishing any matter of and concerning the plaintiffs to the same effect as the imputations contained in the Third Further Amended Statement of claim;

(4)   The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs costs of and incidental to the proceedings and interest on those costs;
(5)   Liberty to apply on three (3) days’ notice on the form of the restraining order and costs.
Catchwords: DEFAMATION – imputations arising from various publications on the internet and other social media – persistent defamation of plaintiffs – permanent injunctions sought and granted
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183; [1996] HCA 47
Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351
Church of Scientology of California Inc v Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 344
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2015) 237 FCR 127; [2015] FCA 750
Munsie v Dowling (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 37
Munsie v Dowling (No 7) [2015] NSWSC 1832
Phillips v Robab Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1520
Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692
Rastogi v Nolan [2010] NSWSC 735
Stephens v Western Australia Newspapers Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 211; [1994] HCA 45
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104; [1994] HCA 46
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

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 (No 10)

Details

AGLC: Munsie v Dowling (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 709
Case: [2018] NSWSC 709
Decision Date: 21 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Munsie v Dowling (No 10) involved the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Munsie, who sought to protect their reputation from ongoing defamatory statements made by the defendants, Mr and Mrs Dowling, across various online platforms. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction due to the interstate nature of the dispute. The Munsies sought permanent injunctions to prevent further defamatory statements, arguing that the persistent and widespread nature of the defamation had caused significant harm to their reputation.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the defendants' statements were indeed defamatory, and if so, whether the court should grant the Munsies the permanent injunctions they sought. The court had to consider the content and context of the statements, as well as the impact they had on the plaintiffs' reputations. The court also needed to determine the appropriate remedy for the ongoing harm caused by the defendants' conduct.

The court found that the statements made by the defendants were indeed defamatory, as they carried the potential to lower the plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public. Given the persistent and widespread nature of the defamation, the court concluded that the harm to the Munsies' reputations warranted the grant of permanent injunctions. The court emphasised the need to protect the plaintiffs from further defamatory attacks and the importance of upholding the integrity of their reputations. Consequently, the court issued the injunctions sought by the Munsies, restraining the defendants from making further defamatory statements about them.

The court's final orders included permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from making any further defamatory statements about the plaintiffs, either directly or indirectly, through any medium, including online platforms and social media. The defendants were also ordered to take steps to remove any existing defamatory content and to refrain from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

Orders