Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085

Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085

There was no evidence that publication of the article caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to the applicant’s reputation as required by s 10A(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic); the publication was limited to three unique page views, and the applicant admitted acts of deception such that her reputation could not be made worse by publication of the article.

Parties
Applicant: Simone Selkirk; First Respondent: Sean Hocking; Second Respondent: NameBright.com Inc; Third Respondent: Nathan Howard (and others named in the Schedule); Fourth Respondent: Gripeo LLC; Fifth Respondent: Martin Wyatt; Sixth Respondent: Real Estate Online Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Final Judgment After Separate Hearing on Preliminary Questions (serious Harm and Extent of Publication)
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation, Serious Harm Element, Extent of Publication, Professional Reputation
Tort Law Media Law Defamation Serious Harm Element Extent of Publication Professional Reputation

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simone Selkirk

Applicant

Sean Hocking

First Respondent

NameBright.com Inc

Second Respondent

Nathan Howard (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

Gripeo LLC

Fourth Respondent

Martin Wyatt

Fifth Respondent

Real Estate Online Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Final Judgment After Separate Hearing on Preliminary Questions (serious Harm and Extent of Publication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the article caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the applicant's reputation under s 10A(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
  2. 2 What was the extent of publication of the article

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that publication of the article caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to the applicant’s reputation as required by s 10A(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic); the publication was limited to three unique page views, and the applicant admitted acts of deception such that her reputation could not be made worse by publication of the article.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed

Orders

  • The proceeding be dismissed.
  • The fifth and sixth respondents file submissions on costs, not exceeding three pages, by no later than 4:00pm on 20 September 2023.