Sydney Security Services Pty Limited v iGuard Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1849

Sydney Security Services Pty Limited v iGuard Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1849

The plaintiff had no cause of action for defamation because it was wholly owned by AAJJ Nominees Pty Limited and was therefore not an excluded corporation, but the evidence was sufficient, although scant, to establish a prima facie case of injurious falsehood because malice could be inferred from the emails in the context of trade competition and there was a real risk of damage to the plaintiff's business. Order 1 was therefore continued. Order 2 was dissolved because a separate preservation order was unnecessary in light of the parties' obligation not to destroy potentially relevant evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Injurious Falsehood; Injunctions / Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Order 1 made 7 December 2016 continued until the next date before the court; Order 2 dissolved; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['excluded Corporations' 'related Corporations' 'injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'preservation of Evidence']
['defamation' 'injunctions'] ['excluded Corporations' 'related Corporations' 'injurious Falsehood' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'preservation of Evidence']

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; Injurious Falsehood; Injunctions / Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was an excluded corporation within the meaning of s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the injunction granted ex parte should be continued on the basis of a prima facie cause of action for injurious falsehood.' 'Whether the order restraining deletion, alteration or modification of systems recording publications should be continued.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff had no cause of action for defamation because it was wholly owned by AAJJ Nominees Pty Limited and was therefore not an excluded corporation, but the evidence was sufficient, although scant, to establish a prima facie case of injurious falsehood because malice could be inferred from the emails in the context of trade competition and there was a real risk of damage to the plaintiff's business. Order 1 was therefore continued. Order 2 was dissolved because a separate preservation order was unnecessary in light of the parties' obligation not to destroy potentially relevant evidence.

Court Disposition

Order 1 made 7 December 2016 continued until the next date before the court; Order 2 dissolved; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 made 7 December 2016 is continued until the next date before the court.' 'Order 2 is dissolved.' 'The costs of today are reserved.']