Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 717

Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 717

The first Google review plainly conveyed serious defamatory imputations about the plaintiff's competence, cruelty and bullying as a plastic surgeon. The first defendant knew the imputations were untrue, published them to harm the plaintiff, failed to apologise or withdraw them promptly, later republished similar material in breach of court orders, and caused reputational, business and emotional harm. Those facts established defamation, injurious falsehood, malice, aggravation, and the inadequacy of damages alone, justifying $530,000 in damages, permanent injunctive relief, indemnity costs and interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Injurious Falsehood / Assessment of Damages and Determination of Permanent Injunctive Relief After Judgment Entered Against the First Defendant; Proceedings With the Second Defendant Resolved by Consent Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; damages assessed at $530,000 with permanent injunctive relief, indemnity costs and interest ordered.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'injurious Falsehood' 'malice' 'permanent Injunctions' 'indemnity Costs' 'interest']
['defamation' 'tort' 'costs'] ['assessment of Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'injurious Falsehood' 'malice' 'permanent Injunctions' 'indemnity Costs' 'interest']

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 and Injurious Falsehood / Assessment of Damages and Determination of Permanent Injunctive Relief After Judgment Entered Against the First Defendant; Proceedings With the Second Defendant Resolved by Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first Google review carried defamatory imputations of and concerning the plaintiff' 'Whether the plaintiff established injurious falsehood, including malice and actual damage' 'Whether interlocutory injunctions restraining publication should be made permanent' 'What damages, including aggravated damages, should be awarded for the defamatory publication' 'Whether indemnity costs and interest should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The first Google review plainly conveyed serious defamatory imputations about the plaintiff's competence, cruelty and bullying as a plastic surgeon. The first defendant knew the imputations were untrue, published them to harm the plaintiff, failed to apologise or withdraw them promptly, later republished similar material in breach of court orders, and caused reputational, business and emotional harm. Those facts established defamation, injurious falsehood, malice, aggravation, and the inadequacy of damages alone, justifying $530,000 in damages, permanent injunctive relief, indemnity costs and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; damages assessed at $530,000 with permanent injunctive relief, indemnity costs and interest ordered.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant shall pay the plaintiff $530,000 as damages for the defamation published and referred to in these reasons for judgment as the first Google review.' "The first defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceedings on an indemnity basis." 'Neither defendant shall create a...