Madden v Seafolly Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 49

Madden v Seafolly Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 49

Both parties partially succeeded on the appeal: declarations were varied to clarify the respective findings regarding representations by each publication; the damages to be paid by Ms Madden to Seafolly were reduced; and it was declared that Seafolly had itself engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Leah Madden; Respondent: Seafolly Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Declarations and orders of the primary judge varied. $5,000 reduction in damages. Proceedings remitted for damages assessment and costs. Costs of appeal mostly to Seafolly.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Qualified Privilege, Damages, Declaratory Relief
Commercial Law Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Qualified Privilege Damages Declaratory Relief

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Leah Madden

Appellant

Seafolly Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in various declarations regarding representations made by the appellant's communications
  2. 2 Whether Seafolly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether qualified privilege defence was correctly upheld

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties partially succeeded on the appeal: declarations were varied to clarify the respective findings regarding representations by each publication; the damages to be paid by Ms Madden to Seafolly were reduced; and it was declared that Seafolly had itself engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Act. Costs of the appeal were largely awarded to Seafolly, but not entirely, reflecting relative success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Declarations and orders of the primary judge varied. $5,000 reduction in damages. Proceedings remitted for damages assessment and costs. Costs of appeal mostly to Seafolly.

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed in part.
  • On or before 15 May 2014 the appellant file and serve a further amended notice of appeal to include the additional ground regarding qualified privilege.