Shine Motor Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2024] NSWSC 800

Shine Motor Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2024] NSWSC 800

Although the plaintiff had an arguable case on falsity, publication and actual damage, and the balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages would have favoured relief, the evidence did not show a good arguable case or sufficient likelihood of success in proving malice. At most it suggested lack of care, lack of precision or infelicity of expression, which was insufficient for the tort of injurious falsehood and therefore insufficient to justify an interlocutory injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Proceeding Alleging Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application in the Duty List
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; ancillary orders made.
Legal Topics
['injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'malice' 'publication' 'actual Damage' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'malice' 'publication' 'actual Damage' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Proceeding Alleging Injurious Falsehood / Interlocutory Application in the Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a serious question to be tried and a prima facie case for injurious falsehood.' 'Whether the plaintiff had a sufficient likelihood of establishing malice by the defendant.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction restraining or altering publication.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff had an arguable case on falsity, publication and actual damage, and the balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages would have favoured relief, the evidence did not show a good arguable case or sufficient likelihood of success in proving malice. At most it suggested lack of care, lack of precision or infelicity of expression, which was insufficient for the tort of injurious falsehood and therefore insufficient to justify an interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; ancillary orders made.

Orders

  • ['The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.' 'The relevant part of the recently filed originating process was dismissed.' 'The matter is to return to the Common Law Registrar at 9 AM on Tuesday 9 July 2024.' 'Costs of the proceedings before Button J are reserved.']