Jane Doe 1 v Dowling (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 126

Jane Doe 1 v Dowling (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 126

The plaintiffs, particularly the third and fourth plaintiffs, demonstrated a serious question to be tried as to entitlement to relief; there appeared to be a very limited prospect of a defence of justification, and the defence of fair report of proceedings of public concern seemed unlikely because the alleged source was an Australian Human Rights Commission claim with no published record and no hearing. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs given the nature of the statements and the relative ease of re-establishing the blog content if the interim orders were later dissolved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Removal Orders, Interlocutory Injunction and Suppression Orders
Outcome
Interlocutory relief granted; orders made in the short minutes of order filed 22 February 2017.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'suppression Orders' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'defence of Justification' 'defence of Fair Report' 'balance of Convenience']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'suppression Orders' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'defence of Justification' 'defence of Fair Report' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Removal Orders, Interlocutory Injunction and Suppression Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim orders should be made requiring statements in an article published on 19 February 2017 and a linked article to be removed from publication.' 'Whether an interlocutory injunction should restrain the defendant from publishing certain imputations concerning the third and fourth plaintiffs.' 'Whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a serious question to be tried or prima facie case in defamation.' 'Whether possible defences of justification or fair report affected the grant of interlocutory relief.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs, particularly the third and fourth plaintiffs, demonstrated a serious question to be tried as to entitlement to relief; there appeared to be a very limited prospect of a defence of justification, and the defence of fair report of proceedings of public concern seemed unlikely because the alleged source was an Australian Human Rights Commission claim with no published record and no hearing. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs given the nature of the statements and the relative ease of re-establishing the blog content if the interim orders were later dissolved.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief granted; orders made in the short minutes of order filed 22 February 2017.

Orders

  • ['The orders proposed in the short minutes of order filed in court on 22 February 2017 were made.' 'The matter shall be returnable before the Duty Judge on 3 March 2017 or at an earlier date as appointed by the Court.']