Reynolds v Sharaz [No 2] - [2025] WASC 388

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   REYNOLDS -v- SHARAZ [No 2] [2025] WASC 388
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   18 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1051 of 2023
BETWEEN:   LINDA KAREN REYNOLDS
Plaintiff
AND
DAVID SHARAZ
Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Assessment of damages following judgment on liability entered by consent - Turns on own facts

Defamation - Costs - Defamation Act 2005 (WA) s 40 - Application for indemnity costs - No settlement offer - Whether defendant's failure to make a settlement offer was unreasonable - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff
Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Bennett
Defendant	:	In person

Cases referred to in decision:

Associated Newspapers v Dingle [1964] AC 371
Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Reynolds v Higgins [2025] WASC 345

TOTTLE J:

Introduction

In this defamation action judgment in favour of the plaintiff was entered by consent on 24 May 2024. An injunction was granted restraining the defendant from publishing the same or similar words as those contained in five social media publications described in more detail later. An order was made that damages would be assessed in conjunction with or after the trial of the plaintiff's claims against Ms Brittany Higgins in the proceedings in this court numbered CIV 1840 of 2023. The defendant was ordered to pay interest on any damages at the rate of 3% per annum from the date on which damage was incurred until judgment or payment. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action and the plaintiff was granted liberty to make an application for a special costs order by 4 June 2024. An application for a special costs order was made on 4 June 2024. On 2 September 2024 I made an order that the evidence in CIV 1840 of 2023 stand as evidence in this action.
The facts and principles relating to the assessment of damages are set out in detail in the judgment in the plaintiff's action against Ms Higgins and are taken to be incorporated in this judgment.[1] I will adopt the definitions used in that judgment.
[1] Reynolds v Higgins [2025] WASC 345.
On 9 September 2025 the defendant filed and served submissions in relation to the assessment of damages and costs.

27 January 2022 tweet

The 27 January 2022 tweet was as follows:
As I found in the judgment in the plaintiff's action against Ms Higgins, Ms Higgins and the defendant were joint tortfeasors in respect of the 27 January 2022 tweet. The defendant accepts that he and Ms Higgins are jointly and severally liable for the damages assessed in CIV 1840 of 2023, that is for the sum of $135,000. The practical consequence of joint and several liability is the plaintiff can recover the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reynolds v Sharaz [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 388
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a defamation case between Reynolds and Sharaz. The initial judgment had determined that the defendant was liable for defamation, and the matter had now reached the stage of assessing damages. Additionally, the defendant applied for indemnity costs under section 40 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA). The plaintiff argued that the defendant's failure to make a settlement offer was unreasonable, which would impact the indemnity costs application.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the assessment of damages for defamation and the application for indemnity costs by the defendant. The court had to determine the appropriate amount of damages for the defamation, considering the unique facts of the case. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the defendant's failure to make a settlement offer was unreasonable, which would influence the decision on indemnity costs.

In assessing the damages, the court recognised that each defamation case is unique and requires a tailored approach. The court took into account various factors, including the extent of the harm caused by the defamation, the conduct of both parties, and the overall circumstances of the case. Regarding the indemnity costs application, the court found that the defendant's failure to make a settlement offer was unreasonable, given the specific facts of the case. Consequently, the defendant's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of damages to be determined in a separate hearing, and the defendant's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.

Orders