Munro v Wheeler (No 3) [2025] NSWDC 3

Munro v Wheeler (No 3) [2025] NSWDC 3

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the matters complained of existed as a composite publication or were downloaded and read in their pleaded form, and therefore publication was not proved. Even if publication and defamatory meaning of all imputations were established, defences of common law and statutory qualified privilege, honest opinion, and, for first defendant, common law fair comment, would succeed. Defences of innocent dissemination and Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) s 91 failed. Damages, if awarded, would be modest and not aggravated.

Parties
1st Plaintiff: Ainslee Kate Munro; 2nd Plaintiff: Lauren Alicia Marchant; 1st Defendant: Shannan Kathleen-Jean Wheeler; 2nd Defendant: Anne-Marie Francis Curry
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Principal Judgment Final Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
Defamation, Social Media Publications, Qualified Privilege, Honest Opinion, Justification, Fair Comment, Innocent Dissemination
Tort Defamation Social Media Publications Qualified Privilege Honest Opinion Justification Fair Comment Innocent Dissemination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ainslee Kate Munro

1st Plaintiff

Lauren Alicia Marchant

2nd Plaintiff

Shannan Kathleen-Jean Wheeler

1st Defendant

Anne-Marie Francis Curry

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Principal Judgment Final Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication and downloading of the matters complained of was established
  2. 2 Whether the publications were defamatory of the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether statutory and common law defences (qualified privilege, honest opinion, fair comment, justification, innocent dissemination, s 91 Broadcasting Services Act) were made out

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to establish that the matters complained of existed as a composite publication or were downloaded and read in their pleaded form, and therefore publication was not proved. Even if publication and defamatory meaning of all imputations were established, defences of common law and statutory qualified privilege, honest opinion, and, for first defendant, common law fair comment, would succeed. Defences of innocent dissemination and Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) s 91 failed. Damages, if awarded, would be modest and not aggravated.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants.
  • Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.