Southern Meats Pty Ltd v Zhi [2021] NSWSC 1120

Southern Meats Pty Ltd v Zhi [2021] NSWSC 1120

The plaintiff had a substantial arguable case that the defendant had published false statements concerning its business to third parties with malice, including allegations of dishonesty, unlawful employment, visa fraud and corrupt reinstatement of its Chinese export licence. The defendant's repeated grievances and demands for apology or recompense supported an inference that the publications were made for the indirect purpose of revenge or pressure over a lost business opportunity. The defendant had continued publishing after being warned and was likely to continue unless restrained, creating a substantial risk of damage to the plaintiff's business and relations with Chinese authorities....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings for Injurious Falsehood / Application for Abridgment of Time for Service of Summons, Early Return Date and Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Orders made for abridgment of time for service of the summons and for an interlocutory injunction restraining publication until the first return date.
Legal Topics
['abridgment of Time' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'injurious Falsehood' 'publication to Third Parties' 'malice' 'balance of Convenience']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['abridgment of Time' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'injurious Falsehood' 'publication to Third Parties' 'malice' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Common Law Proceedings for Injurious Falsehood / Application for Abridgment of Time for Service of Summons, Early Return Date and Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for service of the summons should be abridged and the proceedings given an early return date.' "Whether the plaintiff had an arguable case that the defendant had published false statements concerning the plaintiff's business to third parties with malice." 'Whether, if not restrained, the defendant was likely to continue publishing injurious falsehoods about the plaintiff.' 'Whether further publication was likely to cause actual damage to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had a substantial arguable case that the defendant had published false statements concerning its business to third parties with malice, including allegations of dishonesty, unlawful employment, visa fraud and corrupt reinstatement of its Chinese export licence. The defendant's repeated grievances and demands for apology or recompense supported an inference that the publications were made for the indirect purpose of revenge or pressure over a lost business opportunity. The defendant had continued publishing after being warned and was likely to continue unless restrained, creating a substantial risk of damage to the plaintiff's business and relations with Chinese authorities....

Court Disposition

Orders made for abridgment of time for service of the summons and for an interlocutory injunction restraining publication until the first return date.

Orders

  • ["Up to and including 8 September 2021, the defendant is restrained from making any statements concerning the plaintiff's business or that of any of its directors employees servants or agents whether by email or otherwise to any person or organisation within Australia or China." 'Abridge the time for service of the...