Heath v LawTap Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 485

Heath v LawTap Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 485

The Court granted preliminary discovery because Mr Heath established the requirements of r 7.22(1): there may be a right to obtain relief in defamation in relation to the online statements; he and his solicitors had been unable to ascertain the description of the unknown makers despite attempts to do so; and LawTap was likely to have access to documents that may contain the identifying descriptions sought. The order was limited to documents concerning comments or statements posted between 1 February 2020 and the date of the orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Application Granted
Outcome
Application for preliminary discovery granted.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Unknown Prospective Respondent' 'allegedly Defamatory Online Comments' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 7.22']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['preliminary Discovery' 'identification of Unknown Prospective Respondent' 'allegedly Defamatory Online Comments' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 7.22']

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

Application for Preliminary Discovery Pursuant to R 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Application Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there may be a right for Mr Heath to obtain relief against the unknown person or persons who posted allegedly defamatory online comments.' 'Whether Mr Heath was unable to ascertain the description of the prospective respondent or respondents.' "Whether LawTap Pty Ltd knows or is likely to know the prospective respondent's description, or has or is likely to have control of documents that would help ascertain that description." 'Whether preliminary discovery should be ordered under r 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted preliminary discovery because Mr Heath established the requirements of r 7.22(1): there may be a right to obtain relief in defamation in relation to the online statements; he and his solicitors had been unable to ascertain the description of the unknown makers despite attempts to do so; and LawTap was likely to have access to documents that may contain the identifying descriptions sought. The order was limited to documents concerning comments or statements posted between 1 February 2020 and the date of the orders.

Court Disposition

Application for preliminary discovery granted.

Orders

  • ['On or before 4pm on 9 June 2021, or such further or other time as the Court may order, LawTap Pty Ltd give preliminary discovery, by affidavit, of all documents which are or have been in its control relating to the identification of the description, by name, address or any other form of contact details, of the...