Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 13) [2022] FCA 256

Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal (No 13) [2022] FCA 256

Because Charif and Adam had conducted a lengthy vendetta-like campaign of multiple online publications and postings, had significant control or influence over material they had posted or caused to be published online, and because material repeating defamatory imputations remained available online, there was a real risk of continuing or further republication. A modified ancillary order requiring reasonable steps to notify the seven identified platforms and require removal was useful to make the permanent injunctions more effectual and was justified by the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding Concerning Permanent Injunctions and Australian Consumer Law Restraints / Formulation of Final Orders After Principal Reasons, Including Damages, Permanent Injunctions, Costs and Ancillary Removal Orders
Outcome
Judgment entered for the applicants with damages, permanent injunctions, ancillary removal orders, indemnity costs and release of security for costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Injunctions for Defamatory Publications' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'online Republication' 'removal of Online Defamatory Material' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs']
['defamation' 'consumer Law' 'injunctions'] ['permanent Injunctions for Defamatory Publications' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'online Republication' 'removal of Online Defamatory Material' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs']

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

Defamation Proceeding Concerning Permanent Injunctions and Australian Consumer Law Restraints / Formulation of Final Orders After Principal Reasons, Including Damages, Permanent Injunctions, Costs and Ancillary Removal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether permanent injunctive relief should extend to requiring the respondents to take reasonable steps to notify online platforms that the matters complained of and imputations were defamatory and subject to permanent injunctions and to require removal of the material and links.' 'Whether there was a real risk of continuing or further republication by the respondents.' 'Whether the proposed contested order was necessary, useful and sufficiently certain.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Charif and Adam had conducted a lengthy vendetta-like campaign of multiple online publications and postings, had significant control or influence over material they had posted or caused to be published online, and because material repeating defamatory imputations remained available online, there was a real risk of continuing or further republication. A modified ancillary order requiring reasonable steps to notify the seven identified platforms and require removal was useful to make the permanent injunctions more effectual and was justified by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the applicants with damages, permanent injunctions, ancillary removal orders, indemnity costs and release of security for costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Second Applicant against the First Respondent in the sum of $525,000.' 'Judgment for the Second Applicant against the Second Respondent in the sum of $825,000.' 'Judgment for the First Applicant against the First Respondent in the sum of $65,000.' 'Judgment for the First Applicant against the...