Kaplan v Go Daddy Group & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 636

Kaplan v Go Daddy Group & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 636

There is a prima facie case that the second defendant established and controlled a disparaging website with malicious intent to harm the second plaintiff’s business, and there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the statements were false and amounted to injurious falsehood. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction restraining the second defendant from maintaining the domain or publishing false statements concerning the second plaintiff. No material non-disclosure has been established to justify discharge of the injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction (in modified form) continued until further order. Costs are costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'defamation Principles' 'internet Publication']
['tort Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'defamation Principles' 'internet Publication']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant should be restrained by interlocutory injunction from maintaining a disparaging website and publishing false statements about the second plaintiff' 'Whether the second defendant was author or publisher of the impugned statements' 'Whether the elements of the tort of injurious falsehood are made out on a serious question to be tried' 'Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

There is a prima facie case that the second defendant established and controlled a disparaging website with malicious intent to harm the second plaintiff’s business, and there is a serious question to be tried as to whether the statements were false and amounted to injurious falsehood. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction restraining the second defendant from maintaining the domain or publishing false statements concerning the second plaintiff. No material non-disclosure has been established to justify discharge of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction (in modified form) continued until further order. Costs are costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Discharge injunction granted 17 June 2005 and continued to date.' 'Upon usual undertaking as to damages, second defendant, by himself, servants and agents, restrained until further order from maintaining the domain <www.hunterholdensucks.com> or establishing or maintaining an internet website of the same or...