Malcolm Bruce Duncan v Allen & Unwin & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1069

Malcolm Bruce Duncan v Allen & Unwin & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1069

The injunction was refused because, although the Court assumed there would be a serious issue to be tried if defamation proceedings were commenced, the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief: the book had already been published and distributed for about two months, damages would be the appropriate remedy in defamation proceedings, and the publication concerned a matter of public interest or concern.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction to Restrain Further Publication of a Book in Connection With Intended Defamation Proceedings / Equity Duty List; Application Heard Before Defamation Proceedings Were Commenced
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'publication of Book' 'public Interest or Concern' 'political Activity' 'balance of Convenience']
['defamation' 'equity'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'publication of Book' 'public Interest or Concern' 'political Activity' 'balance of Convenience']

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 Injunction to Restrain Further Publication of a Book in Connection With Intended Defamation Proceedings / Equity Duty List; Application Heard Before Defamation Proceedings Were Commenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be restrained from publishing, distributing or offering for sale any copy of the book "In the Eye of the Needle".' 'Whether the plaintiff had shown an entitlement to an injunction where the book had already been published and distributed for about two months.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction assuming there was a serious issue to be tried in future defamation proceedings.' 'Whether the publication concerned matters of public interest or concern.']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was refused because, although the Court assumed there would be a serious issue to be tried if defamation proceedings were commenced, the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief: the book had already been published and distributed for about two months, damages would be the appropriate remedy in defamation proceedings, and the publication concerned a matter of public interest or concern.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs up to 11am today." 'By consent the matter is transferred to the Common Law Division and entered in the Defamation List.' 'The matter is listed before the Defamation List Judge on 22 November 2004.']