Cao v Liu [2013] NSWDC 172

Cao v Liu [2013] NSWDC 172

The plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant published or authorised the publication of the defamatory email. The evidence established that the defendant's husband (Mr Yu) sent the email and there was insufficient evidence to show the defendant was the publisher or authorised publication. The claim in defamation against the defendant must therefore fail.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ping Cao; Defendant: Shengrong Liu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Publication by Email, Identification, Imputations, Triviality Defence, Damages
Defamation Publication by Email Identification Imputations Triviality Defence Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ping Cao

Plaintiff

Shengrong Liu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant published the defamatory email
  2. 2 Whether the email was of and concerning the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the alleged imputations arise from the email

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant published or authorised the publication of the defamatory email. The evidence established that the defendant's husband (Mr Yu) sent the email and there was insufficient evidence to show the defendant was the publisher or authorised publication. The claim in defamation against the defendant must therefore fail.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant

Orders

  • Leave granted to plaintiff to file a second further amended statement of claim.
  • Verdict and judgment for the defendant.