Webster v Brewer [2020] FCA 622

Webster v Brewer [2020] FCA 622

The Court determined that, given the vile and extensive nature of the publications, the serious questions to be tried, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, an interim injunction should be granted to restrain further online publication by the respondent (including via Facebook), pending a contested hearing. The Court found jurisdiction was established and opted not to order substituted service by the proposed method on the present material.

Parties
First Applicant: Anne Webster; Second Applicant: Phillip Webster; Third Applicant: Zoe Support Australia; Respondent: Karen Brewer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Injunction in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory (ex Parte) Determination of Urgent Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim injunction granted until 5.00pm on 19 May 2020 or further order; substituted service application refused; costs reserved; matter adjourned for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Internet Publication, Substituted Service, Jurisdiction, Damages
Defamation Practice and Procedure Interim Injunction Internet Publication Substituted Service Jurisdiction 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne Webster

First Applicant

Phillip Webster

Second Applicant

Zoe Support Australia

Third Applicant

Karen Brewer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Injunction in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory (ex Parte) Determination of Urgent Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant an interim injunction restraining publication of allegedly defamatory material online
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicants
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the respondent, who resides in New Zealand

Ratio Decidendi

The Court determined that, given the vile and extensive nature of the publications, the serious questions to be tried, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, an interim injunction should be granted to restrain further online publication by the respondent (including via Facebook), pending a contested hearing. The Court found jurisdiction was established and opted not to order substituted service by the proposed method on the present material.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted until 5.00pm on 19 May 2020 or further order; substituted service application refused; costs reserved; matter adjourned for further hearing.

Orders

  • The respondent is restrained from publishing the specified posts and videos or any matter to the same effect identifying the applicants until 5.00pm on 19 May 2020 or further order.
  • The respondent is permitted to disclose the posts to a legal practitioner for advice or representation in connection with the proceeding.