Webster v Brewer (No 2) [2020] FCA 727

Webster v Brewer (No 2) [2020] FCA 727

The Court granted interlocutory relief because the publications were clearly capable of conveying many of the serious alleged imputations, the applicants had sworn evidence that the imputations were false, Ms Brewer had not appeared or identified any arguable defence, and there was a serious question to be tried. Damages were not an adequate remedy because the publications could cause irremediable harm to Dr Anne Webster and Dr Philip Webster in their local community and could destroy Zoe Support's integrity as a charitable provider. The balance of convenience strongly favoured relief because there was no evidence of justification or legitimate public interest, the applicants gave the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Undefended Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Take Down Order
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted, take-down order made, case management orders made, costs reserved and liberty reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'take Down Order' 'facebook Publications' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'trans Tasman Proceedings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'take Down Order' 'facebook Publications' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'trans Tasman Proceedings']

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 Proceeding / Undefended Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Take Down Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the applicants' claims for damages for alleged defamatory Facebook publications." 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicants if interlocutory injunctive relief were refused.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining the respondent from publishing, maintaining online or uploading the publications or similar matter.' 'Whether mandatory take-down relief requiring removal of the later Facebook post and videos was warranted.' "Whether the respondent's New Zealand location affected the grant of interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted interlocutory relief because the publications were clearly capable of conveying many of the serious alleged imputations, the applicants had sworn evidence that the imputations were false, Ms Brewer had not appeared or identified any arguable defence, and there was a serious question to be tried. Damages were not an adequate remedy because the publications could cause irremediable harm to Dr Anne Webster and Dr Philip Webster in their local community and could destroy Zoe Support's integrity as a charitable provider. The balance of convenience strongly favoured relief because there was no evidence of justification or legitimate public interest, the applicants gave the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted, take-down order made, case management orders made, costs reserved and liberty reserved.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages, until further order, the respondent by herself or by her servants or agents, or howsoever, be restrained from publishing or causing to be published in any form, or maintaining online for downloading, or uploading so as to make available for...