Cheng v Pan; Cheng v Zhou [2022] NSWCA 21

Cheng v Pan; Cheng v Zhou [2022] NSWCA 21

The appeal failed because the evidence established that the appellant posted the envelopes containing Letters 8 and 11 and her claim that they contained different letters was fanciful and demonstrably false. Given the common content and style of the letters, her motive, and the absence of evidence suggesting another publisher, the primary judge was entitled to infer that she published all of the letters. The pleaded imputations were not challenged at trial. No appellate error was shown in the damages awards, including aggravated damages, having regard to the seriousness, targeted recipients, reputational harm, hurt and the appellant's dishonest conduct of the proceedings. The indemnity...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From Orders of the Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division, Dismissing Challenges to Liability, Damages Including Aggravated Damages, Injunction and Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['publication of Defamatory Matter' 'circumstantial Proof of Publication' 'anonymous Letters' 'defamatory Imputations' 'general Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'indemnity Costs' 'delay in Delivery of Judgment' 'appellate Rehearing' 'permanent Injunction']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'evidence'] ['publication of Defamatory Matter' 'circumstantial Proof of Publication' 'anonymous Letters' 'defamatory Imputations' 'general Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'indemnity Costs' 'delay in Delivery of Judgment' 'appellate Rehearing' 'permanent Injunction']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Orders of the Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division, Dismissing Challenges to Liability, Damages Including Aggravated Damages, Injunction and Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was proved to have published any or all of the anonymous defamatory letters.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the pleaded imputations were conveyed and defamatory.' 'Whether delay in delivery of the primary judgment and alleged inadequacy of reasons justified appellate intervention.' 'Whether the awards of damages, including aggravated damages, were excessive or affected by error.' 'Whether the permanent injunction should be disturbed.' 'Whether costs should have been assessed on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the evidence established that the appellant posted the envelopes containing Letters 8 and 11 and her claim that they contained different letters was fanciful and demonstrably false. Given the common content and style of the letters, her motive, and the absence of evidence suggesting another publisher, the primary judge was entitled to infer that she published all of the letters. The pleaded imputations were not challenged at trial. No appellate error was shown in the damages awards, including aggravated damages, having regard to the seriousness, targeted recipients, reputational harm, hurt and the appellant's dishonest conduct of the proceedings. The indemnity...

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal 2021/54620: Appeal dismissed.' "Appeal 2021/54620: The appellant to pay the respondents' costs." 'Appeal 2021/54621: Appeal dismissed.' "Appeal 2021/54621: The appellant to pay the respondent's costs."]