Rothe v Scott (No 4)

Rothe, a motel owner in a small country town, sued Scott, who published a Facebook post warning of paedophiles operating in the area, naming three motels owned by Rothe. Scott did not name Rothe but argued that his post was an honest opinion protected by qualified privilege. Rothe claimed defamation, aggravated compensatory damages, and sought judgment for $150,000. The court had to decide if Rothe was identifiable, if the post conveyed defamatory imputations, the extent of publication, and the applicability of qualified privilege, honest opinion, and triviality as defences.

The court found that although Rothe was not directly named, the motels were sufficiently specific to identify him as the owner. The post conveyed the defamatory imputation that Rothe was involved with paedophiles. The court rejected Scott’s defence of qualified privilege, finding no duty or interest sufficient to justify the publication. The honest opinion defence was also dismissed, as the post was not based on facts but rather on a false premise. The triviality defence failed because the publication was widespread and damaging. The court awarded Rothe $150,000 in aggravated compensatory damages.

The court ordered judgment for Rothe against Scott for $150,000, with further submissions on interest and costs. The proceedings were listed for further directions regarding interest and costs. The exhibits were retained for 28 days, and liberty to apply for interest and costs was granted.