Webster v Brewer (No 3) [2020] FCA 1343

Webster v Brewer (No 3) [2020] FCA 1343

Given the seriousness and malice of the imputations, their wide publication, the targeted and persistent campaign by the respondent, and the need to vindicate the applicants’ reputations and provide consolation for hurt and distress, substantial general damages including aggravated damages were awarded to each applicant, uncapped, under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), as warranted by the aggravated circumstances.

Parties
First Applicant: Anne Webster; Second Applicant: Philip Webster; Third Applicant: Zoe Support Australia (ABN 76161029705); Respondent: Karen Brewer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants; damages (including aggravated damages) awarded to each; costs to applicants.
Legal Topics
Damages, Aggravated Damages, Assessment of Non Economic Loss, Statutory Cap, Reputation, Defamation on Social Media
Defamation Damages Aggravated Damages Assessment of Non Economic Loss Statutory Cap Reputation Defamation on Social Media

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne Webster

First Applicant

Philip Webster

Second Applicant

Zoe Support Australia (ABN 76161029705)

Third Applicant

Karen Brewer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate assessment of damages (including aggravated damages) for the applicants in a defamation claim following default judgment?
  2. 2 Whether the statutory cap on damages for non-economic loss applies to each applicant severally?
  3. 3 Whether aggravated damages are appropriate in the circumstances of the respondent's conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the seriousness and malice of the imputations, their wide publication, the targeted and persistent campaign by the respondent, and the need to vindicate the applicants’ reputations and provide consolation for hurt and distress, substantial general damages including aggravated damages were awarded to each applicant, uncapped, under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic), as warranted by the aggravated circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants; damages (including aggravated damages) awarded to each; costs to applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the first applicant general damages, including aggravated damages, assessed at $350,000.00.
  • The respondent pay the second applicant general damages, including aggravated damages, assessed at $225,000.00.