AAMAC Warehousing & Transport Pty Limited & Ors v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1030

AAMAC Warehousing & Transport Pty Limited & Ors v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1030

The plaintiffs were not entitled to fresh interlocutory injunctive relief because, although falsity and damage raised serious questions, there was no serious question to be tried on malice for injurious falsehood and no serious question that the Fair Trading Act exemption in s 60 was displaced. The proceeding was in substance a defamation claim involving a matter of public interest, the defendants proposed to justify the representations, and the discretionary caution against prior restraints on free speech weighed against an injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Fresh Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Restraining Publication, Relying on Injurious Falsehood and Fair Trading Act Claims / Notice of Motion Dated 25 September 2009 After Discharge of Ex Parte Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure
Outcome
The plaintiffs failed on their fresh application for injunctive relief and the Notice of Motion dated 25 September 2009 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'prior Restraint of Publication' 'injurious Falsehood' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'prescribed Information Providers' 'ex Parte Non Disclosure' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Fresh Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Restraining Publication, Relying on Injurious Falsehood and Fair Trading Act Claims / Notice of Motion Dated 25 September 2009 After Discharge of Ex Parte Injunctions for Material Non Disclosure

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the plaintiffs' cause of action for injurious falsehood." "Whether there was a serious question to be tried in relation to the plaintiffs' cause of action under section 44 Fair Trading Act or section 42 Fair Trading Act." 'Whether sections 42 and 44 of the Fair Trading Act were excluded by section 60 for prescribed information providers.' 'Whether the proceeding was in substance a defamation action such that special discretionary reasons weighed against an injunction restraining publication.' 'Whether findings of deliberate non-disclosure and other discretionary factors weighed against injunctive relief.' 'Where the balance of convenience lay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were not entitled to fresh interlocutory injunctive relief because, although falsity and damage raised serious questions, there was no serious question to be tried on malice for injurious falsehood and no serious question that the Fair Trading Act exemption in s 60 was displaced. The proceeding was in substance a defamation claim involving a matter of public interest, the defendants proposed to justify the representations, and the discretionary caution against prior restraints on free speech weighed against an injunction.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs failed on their fresh application for injunctive relief and the Notice of Motion dated 25 September 2009 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs fail on their fresh application for injunctive relief against the defendants filed on 25 September 2009.' 'The plaintiffs fail on their application for restraints against the publication of the South Pacific representation and the criminal affiliation representation.' "Dismiss the plaintiffs' Notice...