Rastogi v Nolan [2010] NSWSC 735

Rastogi v Nolan [2010] NSWSC 735

The defendant, through various Internet publications, conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff which were serious, including allegations of deceitfulness, recklessness, lack of qualifications, false advertising, consumer abuse, and other misconduct. The sole defence under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 failed, as the publications and imputations were not identical or sufficiently 'like' matter to trigger the bar. The lack of apology and repeated publication justified aggravated damages. Damages assessed for each publication, with interest awarded, and permanent injunction granted to protect the plaintiff's reputation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'damages' 'injunction' 'aggravated Damages' 'application for Adjournment' 'defamation Act 2005 S.23' 'assessment of Damages']
['defamation' 'tort Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamation' 'damages' 'injunction' 'aggravated Damages' 'application for Adjournment' 'defamation Act 2005 S.23' 'assessment of Damages']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements published by the defendant conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff' "Whether the defendant's conduct justifies aggravated damages" 'Whether s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 precludes the plaintiff from pursuing the current Statement of Claim' 'Whether a permanent injunction should be granted against the defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, through various Internet publications, conveyed defamatory imputations about the plaintiff which were serious, including allegations of deceitfulness, recklessness, lack of qualifications, false advertising, consumer abuse, and other misconduct. The sole defence under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 failed, as the publications and imputations were not identical or sufficiently 'like' matter to trigger the bar. The lack of apology and repeated publication justified aggravated damages. Damages assessed for each publication, with interest awarded, and permanent injunction granted to protect the plaintiff's reputation.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ["The defendant, Deidre Nolan, is permanently restrained from directly or indirectly publishing statements of or concerning the plaintiff to the effect that he is reckless, negligent or dishonest in his profession as a cosmetic surgeon, that he did not perform the defendant's surgery correctly, or similar...