Munsie v Dowling [2014] NSWSC 1508

Munsie v Dowling [2014] NSWSC 1508

The plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case that the defendant's publications were grossly defamatory and apparently false, while the defendant identified no material capable of showing a real prospect of any defence. The balance of convenience favoured restraint because damages were not shown to be adequate, the defendant intended to continue publishing by internet and signs, and the publications amounted to harassment and intimidation; the usual caution against prior restraint in defamation did not outweigh those factors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief and Removal Orders
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions and removal orders made on 4 June 2014, continued and expanded on 11 June 2014, with a variation on 13 June 2014.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'prior Restraint of Allegedly Defamatory Publications' 'freedom of Speech' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'removal of Internet Publications']
['defamation' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'prior Restraint of Allegedly Defamatory Publications' 'freedom of Speech' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'removal of Internet Publications']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief and Removal Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case sufficient to justify interlocutory restraint of the defendant's allegedly defamatory publications." 'Whether the balance of convenience, including the public interest in freedom of speech, favoured granting interlocutory injunctions.' 'Whether the defendant had shown any arguable defence, including truth, comment, justification or qualified privilege.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if the defendant were not restrained.' 'Whether the defendant should be required to remove identified material from YouTube and websites.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case that the defendant's publications were grossly defamatory and apparently false, while the defendant identified no material capable of showing a real prospect of any defence. The balance of convenience favoured restraint because damages were not shown to be adequate, the defendant intended to continue publishing by internet and signs, and the publications amounted to harassment and intimidation; the usual caution against prior restraint in defamation did not outweigh those factors.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions and removal orders made on 4 June 2014, continued and expanded on 11 June 2014, with a variation on 13 June 2014.

Orders

  • ['On 4 June 2014 the motion was made returnable instanter and service was ordered by email.' 'The defendant was restrained until 4pm Wednesday 11 June 2014 from publishing the sign referred to in the affidavit of Richard Michael Keegan sworn 4 June 2014 and the imputations, or imputations to the same effect, set out...