Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44
Clover Bond Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Cool Clear Water Unit Trust v Carroll [2004] WASC 216
Cullen v White [2003] WASC 153
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 693
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 946
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
John v MGN [1997] QB 586; [1996] 3 WLR 593
Macquarie Bank Ltd v Berg [1999] NSWSC 526
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Maitra [1998] 2 All ER 638
Rindos v Hardwick (Unreported, WASC, Library No 940164, 31 March 1994)
Todd v Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 334

LE MIERE J:

Introduction

The plaintiff is a naturopath. The defendant is a medical doctor who obtained his qualifications in Germany and later moved to Australia where he has practised as a natural health practitioner. Between November 2007 and October 2008 the defendant published on the worldwide web or by email seven publications that are defamatory of the plaintiff. Judgment in default of appearance was entered for the plaintiff. The plaintiff now applies for the assessment of his damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from any further or future publication of the defamatory matters complained of or any similar defamatory matter published of and concerning the plaintiff.

The hearing

The evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was adduced by affidavit. The plaintiff was represented by counsel. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant.

Background

The plaintiff learned the fundamentals of natural medicine from the late Dr Robert Lucy in the late 1970s. Dr Lucy started the Preventative Medicine Movement, which later became the College of Somatic Studies. He also created the Institute of Research into Iris Studies. Between 1983 and 1985 the plaintiff obtained qualifications from the Preventative Medicine Movement and the Institute of Research into Iris Studies. He started practising fulltime as a naturopath at his own clinic in 1985. At the time there were no formal requirements to become a naturopath. In 1987 or 1988 the plaintiff opened his clinic in Cottesloe and has practised there ever since.
The plaintiff joined an association started by Dr Lucy that later became the Complementary Medicine Association (CMA). There were not in 1985 and there are still no formal requirements to practise…

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 Woolcott v Seeger

Details

AGLC: Woolcott v Seeger [2010] WASC 19
Case: [2010] WASC 19
Decision Date: 17 FEBRUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was Woolcott v Seeger, heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Woolcott, the plaintiff, sought damages for defamation caused by Seeger, the defendant, who published a blog post containing allegedly defamatory statements. Woolcott also sought an injunction to prevent further publication of the blog post. The dispute centred on whether the statements made by Seeger were defamatory, and if so, whether Woolcott was entitled to damages and an injunction. The court had to decide whether the statements were defamatory, if they were directed at Woolcott, and whether an injunction was necessary to prevent further harm.

The primary legal issues addressed were the interpretation of the allegedly defamatory statements, the applicability of the defence of truth, and the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction. The court needed to determine if the statements were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and if they referred to Woolcott. Additionally, the court examined whether Seeger could rely on the defence of truth and whether Woolcott had suffered damage as a result of the publication. Finally, the court considered whether an injunction was warranted to prevent further publication of the blog post.

The court found that the statements in the blog post were indeed defamatory and were directed at Woolcott. The court emphasised that the defence of truth was not available to Seeger because the statements were not proven to be true. Furthermore, the court concluded that Woolcott had suffered damage due to the publication. As a result, the court granted an injunction to restrain Seeger from further publishing the blog post. The court's decision hinged on the specific facts of the case, including the nature and context of the statements made and their impact on Woolcott.

The court ordered Seeger to pay Woolcott damages and to comply with the injunction preventing further publication of the blog post. The court also directed Seeger to remove the blog post from all online platforms and refrain from making any further defamatory statements about Woolcott.

Orders