Tate v Duncan-Strelec

The plaintiff, Tate, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendant, Duncan-Strelec, restraining the publication of defamatory material, as well as an injunction requiring the defendant to cease publishing the offending material. The dispute arose out of a blog post published by the defendant which was alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the publication of the defamatory material, and whether the defendant was in contempt of court for breaching an implied undertaking, publishing material seeking a reprisal against the plaintiff, and scandalising the court. The court also had to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried on the merits of the case.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for defamation and that there was a serious question to be tried on the merits. The court held that the defendant was in contempt of court for breaching the implied undertaking, publishing material seeking a reprisal against the plaintiff, and scandalising the court. Accordingly, the court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the offending material. The court also granted an injunction requiring the defendant to cease publishing the offending material.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application on an indemnity basis. The court further ordered that the defendant publish an apology on their blog and social media accounts, and that they refrain from publishing any further material about the plaintiff without their consent. The defendant was also ordered to provide an undertaking to the court that they would not publish any further material about the plaintiff without first obtaining the consent of the plaintiff's solicitors.