Smith v Jones [2020] NSWDC 262

Smith v Jones [2020] NSWDC 262

The defendant published the Yelp Review and Google Review, those matters were read by others and were inferentially read by further internet users, and they conveyed serious defamatory imputations about the plaintiff's ethics, professionalism, competence, honesty and alleged threatening conduct as a solicitor. The publications were serious, targeted, hurtful, damaging to reputation and aggravated by the defendant's improper conduct and threats to continue defaming the plaintiff. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to damages, interest, costs and permanent injunctions because there was a sufficient risk of repetition unless restrained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings Seeking Damages and Injunctions / Principal Judgment Following Ex Parte Hearing; Defendant Had Not Filed a Defence
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $84,281, with permanent injunctive relief and costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['internet Publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'compensatory Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'permanent Injunctions' 'damage to Reputation' 'injury to Feelings']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'remedies'] ['internet Publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'capacity to Convey Imputations' 'compensatory Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'permanent Injunctions' 'damage to Reputation' 'injury to Feelings']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings Seeking Damages and Injunctions / Principal Judgment Following Ex Parte Hearing; Defendant Had Not Filed a Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendant publish the Yelp Review and/or the Google Review?' 'Did the matters complained of convey the imputations contended for by the plaintiff?' 'What damages should be awarded to the plaintiff?' 'Is the plaintiff entitled to injunctive relief?']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant published the Yelp Review and Google Review, those matters were read by others and were inferentially read by further internet users, and they conveyed serious defamatory imputations about the plaintiff's ethics, professionalism, competence, honesty and alleged threatening conduct as a solicitor. The publications were serious, targeted, hurtful, damaging to reputation and aggravated by the defendant's improper conduct and threats to continue defaming the plaintiff. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to damages, interest, costs and permanent injunctions because there was a sufficient risk of repetition unless restrained.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $84,281, with permanent injunctive relief and costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $84,281.' 'I order that the defendant is permanently restrained from publishing any defamatory imputation of and concerning the plaintiff found by the Court to be conveyed in the First Matter Complained Of and the Second Matter Complained Of as those terms are...