Webster v Brewer (No 2)

In Webster v Brewer (No 2), the court was asked to grant an interlocutory injunction and a take-down order against Ms Brewer in relation to alleged defamatory publications made on Facebook. The applicants, Dr Anne Webster, Dr Philip Webster and Zoe Support, alleged that Ms Brewer had published seven defamatory items on Facebook, including posts and videos, that identified them and contained defamatory imputations. The court was required to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the applicants' entitlement to relief, whether the applicants were likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction and take-down order.

The court found that the applicants had established a serious question to be tried, as there were credible allegations of defamation and the applicants had a plausible case. The court also found that the applicants were likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, as the publications had already caused harm to their reputations and there was a risk of ongoing harm if the publications were not removed. The court further found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction and take-down order, as the harm to the applicants outweighed any potential harm to Ms Brewer's freedom of speech. The court therefore made an interlocutory injunction and a take-down order against Ms Brewer.

The final orders made by the court were that Ms Brewer be restrained from publishing or maintaining online the seven defamatory items, any other matter to the same purport or effect, and that she remove three of the items from her Facebook account. The court also made orders for case management, including a shortened time for filing a defence and a case management hearing date. Costs and liberty were reserved.