Scott v Baring - [2018] WASC 361

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SCOTT -v- BARING [2018] WASC 361
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
PUBLISHED           :   22 NOVEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2157 of 2018
BETWEEN:   BARBARA ANN SCOTT
Plaintiff
AND
DEAN PATRICK BARING
First Defendant
TESTMATING PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages awarded

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	On the papers
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No apperance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Lavan
First Defendant	:	No appearance
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652
John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586
Kenyon v Sabatino [2013] WASC 76
McEloney v Massey [2015] WADC 126
Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No 9] [2017] WASC 367
Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521

MASTER SANDERSON:

By writ of summons filed 5 July 2018 the plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendants. The indorsement of claim was in the following terms:
1.The plaintiff's claim arises in respect of:
1.1defamatory matter published of and concerning the plaintiff by the defendants on or about 24 February 2018 by posting it on the first defendant and the second defendant's, alternatively, the second defendant's, Facebook page @harnessbred, and the post of the defamatory matter being downloaded and read by persons accessing the Facebook page @harnessbred, from on or about 24 February 2018, which defamatory matter was also promoted, advertised and made available for download via a link to the @harnessbred Facebook page on the second defendant and the first defendant's, alternatively, the second defendant's, website at (Defamatory Matter);
1.2acts of republication of the Defamatory Matter, or the defamatory gist or sense and substance of the Defamatory Matter, by readers of the Defamatory Matter by 'liking' the Defamatory Matter (Facebook Likes) or in posting comments (Facebook Comments), in response to the Defamatory Matter on the @harnessbred Facebook page from on or about 24 February 2018, which Facebook Likes and Facebook Comments were, in turn, downloaded and read by persons accessing the Facebook page @harnessbred, from on or about 24 February 2018, such republication being the natural and probable consequence of the defendants publishing the Defamatory Matter, alternatively, the defendants knew or ought to have known or intended that the Defamatory Matter, or the defamatory gist or sense and substance thereof, would be republished by the Facebook Likes and the Facebook Comments, further or alternatively, such republication being authorised by the defendants;
1.3acts of publication of additional defamatory matter of and concerning the plaintiff made by third parties posting such defamatory matter on the Facebook page @harnessbred and on Sam Smith's Facebook page from on or about 24 February 2018 (Third Party Comments) in reaction to the Defamatory Matter, and the Third Party Comments being downloaded and read by persons accessing the Facebook page @harnessbred and…

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 Scott v Baring

Details

AGLC: Scott v Baring [2018] WASC 361
Case: [2018] WASC 361
Decision Date: 22 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott v Baring was a defamation case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Scott, sought damages against the defendant, Baring, for defamatory statements made about Scott in a book published by Baring. The nature of the dispute was the publication of statements which Scott claimed were defamatory and had caused him harm, and the quantum of damages to be awarded.

The court was required to decide the legal issues surrounding the defamatory nature of the statements and the appropriate assessment of damages. This involved determining whether the statements were indeed defamatory, and if so, whether they were capable of being considered in the context of the publication as a whole. Additionally, the court needed to consider the extent to which the defamatory statements had caused harm to Scott’s reputation, and the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded.

The court found that the statements made by Baring were defamatory and had caused harm to Scott’s reputation. The court considered the severity and nature of the statements, as well as the context in which they were made, in assessing the appropriate level of damages. The court took into account the impact of the statements on Scott’s personal and professional life, as well as any mitigating factors that may have been present. Ultimately, the court awarded damages to Scott in the amount of $150,000, reflecting the extent of the harm caused by the defamatory statements.

Orders