Goldsmith v Ghosh [2015] NSWSC 631

Goldsmith v Ghosh [2015] NSWSC 631

The material complained of was capable of being defamatory and the balance of convenience favoured a limited restraint on further similar publications because the plaintiff showed a real potential for serious reputational and business harm, while there was nothing to suggest the defendant would suffer prejudice from being restrained from publishing statements to the same or similar effect. However, because the application was heard in the defendant's absence and she asserted lack of notice, the Court declined to require removal of the post at that time and stood that aspect over. Leave to serve a subpoena in the United States was granted because it was directed to identifying anonymous...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Urgent Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief and Leave Under R 11.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) to Serve a Subpoena in the United States
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in part; balance of motion stood over; leave granted to serve a subpoena to produce in the United States; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'freedom of Speech' 'damage to Reputation' 'substituted Service' 'service of Subpoena Outside Australia']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'freedom of Speech' 'damage to Reputation' 'substituted Service' 'service of Subpoena Outside Australia']

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 / Urgent Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief and Leave Under R 11.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) to Serve a Subpoena in the United States

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted urgent injunctive relief restraining the defendant from publishing statements defamatory of him.' 'Whether the defendant should be required to take all reasonable steps to remove allegedly defamatory material from a website.' 'Whether leave should be granted under r 11.5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to serve a subpoena to produce in the United States upon Consumer Opinion LLC.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the defendant on the motion where she had not had the opportunity to be heard.']

Ratio Decidendi

The material complained of was capable of being defamatory and the balance of convenience favoured a limited restraint on further similar publications because the plaintiff showed a real potential for serious reputational and business harm, while there was nothing to suggest the defendant would suffer prejudice from being restrained from publishing statements to the same or similar effect. However, because the application was heard in the defendant's absence and she asserted lack of notice, the Court declined to require removal of the post at that time and stood that aspect over. Leave to serve a subpoena in the United States was granted because it was directed to identifying anonymous...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in part; balance of motion stood over; leave granted to serve a subpoena to produce in the United States; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Until further order, the defendant be restrained from publishing, directly or indirectly, in any form, any statements of or concerning the plaintiff that are the same or to a similar effect as those pleaded in paragraphs 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 in the statement of claim, other than as may be required by law, to...