Smith v Jones

Case [2020] NSWDC 262

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Smith v Jones [2020] NSWDC 262
Hearing dates: 8 April 2020
Date of orders: 28 May 2020
Decision date: 28 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $84,281.
(2)   I order that the defendant is permanently restrained from publishing any defamatory imputation of and concerning the plaintiff found by the Court to be conveyed in the First Matter Complained Of and the Second Matter Complained Of as those terms are defined in the Amended Statement of Claim.
(3)   I order that the defendant is to permanently remove the First Matter Complained Of and the Second Matter Complained Of as those terms are defined in the Amended Statement of Claim from all websites on which either of them appears.
(4)   The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – Defamatory matter – Capacity to convey pleaded imputations – Publication – Internet technologies – Remedies – Aggravated damages – Improper, unjustifiable or lacking in bona fides –Compensatory damages – Damage to reputation – Injury to feelings – Permanent injunctions
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Bolton v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 at 573-574 [134]
Cripps v Vakras [2014] VSC 279
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Pedavoli (2015) 91 NSWLR 48
Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
Palmer Bruyn & Parker v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2009) 238 CLR 460
Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237
Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1
Stoltenberg v Bolton [2020] NSWCA 45
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497
Trkulja v Google LLC (2018) 263 CLR 149
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Rodger Smith v Richard Jones
Representation:

Counsel:    D Sibtain (Plaintiff)

  Solicitors:    Katsoolis and Co (Plaintiff)
No appearance by defendant
File Number(s): 2018/312424
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Mark Smith (the plaintiff) seeks damages for defamation and injunctions to prevent further publication of defamatory material by Richard Jones (the defendant).

  2. The plaintiff is a solicitor who practices in the Sutherland Shire and he is the principal of his firm. The defendant is a building inspector offering his services through Sydney Building Defects Inspections and Reports Pty Ltd (the company), of which he describes himself as the “Managing Director”.

  3. In 2018, the company was retained by clients of the plaintiff (the clients) to provide a report relating to a property in Jannali. In or about July 2018, a…

Continue reading Smith v Jones

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Smith v Jones [2020] NSWDC 262
Case
[2020] NSWDC 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Smith v Jones involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Smith, against the defendant, Jones, for defamatory statements published online. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had published two defamatory matters on the internet, causing harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and feelings. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues, including whether the published material was capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff. It also needed to consider whether the defendant had published the material and whether the plaintiff had suffered damage to their reputation and injury to feelings. Additionally, the court had to assess the appropriateness of aggravated and compensatory damages, and whether a permanent injunction was warranted to prevent further publication of the defamatory material.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that the published material was capable of conveying defamatory imputations about the plaintiff, which were indeed published by the defendant. The defamatory statements were found to have caused significant damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and feelings. As such, the court awarded the plaintiff $84,281 in damages, comprising both aggravated and compensatory damages. The court also granted a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from further publishing the defamatory material and requiring the removal of the published content from all websites. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $84,281.

(2) I order that the defendant is permanently restrained from publishing any defamatory imputation of and concerning the plaintiff found by the Court to be conveyed in the First Matter Complained Of and the Second Matter Complained Of as those terms are defined in the Amended Statement of Claim.

(3) I order that the defendant is to permanently remove the First Matter Complained Of and the Second Matter Complained Of as those terms are defined in the Amended Statement of Claim from all websites on which either of them appears.

(4) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.