Legal Research
Cases
Newman v Whittington

Newman v Whittington

Case [2025] NSWSC 275 26 March 2025

Defamation

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Injunction

Costs

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275
Hearing dates: 14 February, 5 and 26 March 2025
Date of orders: 26 March 2025
Decision date: 26 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Chen J
Decision:
See [215]

Catchwords:
DEFAMATION – damages – assessment of damages – where serious imputations made against family dispute resolution practitioner including matters concerning paedophilia and fraudulent behaviour – grapevine effect – aggravated damages awarded
DEFAMATION – remedies – injunctions – where twelve individual publications published on defendant’s blog and social media – whether mandatory and permanent injunctive relief appropriate – mandatory and permanent injunctions granted
COSTS – party/party – application made by party entitled to costs under judgment for gross sum costs order – where counsel appointed for plaintiff under pro-bono scheme – where costs orders made by Court of Appeal in interlocutory appeal proceedings – whether jurisdiction to make gross sum costs order inclusive of costs of interlocutory appeal – gross sum costs order made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Defamation Amendment Act 2020 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
New South Wales Government Gazette, No 245, 28 June 2024
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ahern v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 39
Al Muderis v Duncan [2016] NSWSC 1726
Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 2 NSWLR 225
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson(No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119; [1995] FCA 350
Beau Timothy John Hartnett trading as Hartnett Lawyers v Anthony Robert Bell as Executor of the Estate of the late Mabel Dawn Deakin-Bell (No 2) (2023) 113 NSWLR 381; [2023] NSWCA 311
Belbin v Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation [2012] VSC 535
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 31
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Goater [2016] NSWSC 216
Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 211; [1991] HCA 10
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Doe v Dowling [2019] NSWSC 1222
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56
Eppinga v Kalil [2023] NSWCA 287
Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254; [1928] HCA 36
Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1; [2003] VSCA 161
Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) (2015) 237 FCR 33; [2015] FCA 652
Hoser v Pelley [No 3] [2023] VSCA 257
Kegran Pty Ltd v Warrik Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1357; (2018) 19 BPR 38665
Korean Times Pty Ltd v Pak [2011] NSWCA 365
KSMC…

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 Newman v Whittington

Details

AGLC: Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275
Case: [2025] NSWSC 275
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newman v Whittington involved a dispute concerning defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff, who was a family dispute resolution practitioner. The defamatory statements were published on the defendant’s blog and social media platforms and included serious allegations of paedophilia and fraudulent behaviour. The plaintiff sought damages for the defamation, along with injunctive relief to prevent further publication of the defamatory material.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of damages for the serious defamation and whether the plaintiff was entitled to aggravated damages due to the nature of the imputations. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory and permanent injunction to prevent further publication of the defamatory material. The court also had to consider whether it had the jurisdiction to make a gross sum costs order that included the costs of the interlocutory appeal proceedings.

In assessing the damages, the court found that the defamatory imputations were serious and had a significant impact on the plaintiff’s reputation, warranting an award of aggravated damages. The court determined that a mandatory and permanent injunction was appropriate to prevent further harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to make a gross sum costs order that included the costs of the interlocutory appeal, as the plaintiff had been successful in the current proceedings and the interlocutory appeal. The court granted the plaintiff a gross sum costs order, inclusive of the costs of the interlocutory appeal.

Orders