Doe v Dowling [2017] NSWSC 1793

Doe v Dowling [2017] NSWSC 1793

There is no evidence of a viable defence to defamation for the publications; the defendant has not substantiated a case for truth or privilege and the balance of convenience favours the plaintiffs, warranting continuation of interlocutory injunction and confirmation of non-publication orders.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Jane Doe 1; Second Plaintiff: Jane Doe 2; Third Plaintiff: Jane Doe 3; Fourth Plaintiff: Jane Doe 4; Defendant: Shane Dowling
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory – Application for Continuation of Injunction and Review of Non Publication Orders
Outcome
Application granted for continuation of injunction; confirmation of non-publication and pseudonym orders.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Non Publication Orders, Prima Facie Cause of Action, Defences to Defamation, Freedom of Speech, Suppression of Identity
Defamation Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Non Publication Orders Prima Facie Cause of Action Defences to Defamation Freedom of Speech Suppression of Identity

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Doe 1

First Plaintiff

Jane Doe 2

Second Plaintiff

Jane Doe 3

Third Plaintiff

Jane Doe 4

Fourth Plaintiff

Shane Dowling

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory – Application for Continuation of Injunction and Review of Non Publication Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction restraining publication of defamatory matter should be continued
  2. 2 Whether non-publication and pseudonym orders should be confirmed under s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act 2010 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether there is any real prospect of a viable defence to defamation

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence of a viable defence to defamation for the publications; the defendant has not substantiated a case for truth or privilege and the balance of convenience favours the plaintiffs, warranting continuation of interlocutory injunction and confirmation of non-publication orders.

Court Disposition

Application granted for continuation of injunction; confirmation of non-publication and pseudonym orders.

Orders

  • Order 5 made by Walton J on 22 February 2017 is continued until further order.
  • Non-publication orders made pursuant to s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-Publication Orders) Act by Campbell J (order 4 made 21 December 2016) and Walton J (order 3 made 22 February 2017) are confirmed.