Sydney Security Services Pty Ltd v iGuard Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1808

Sydney Security Services Pty Ltd v iGuard Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1808

The plaintiff was entitled to short ex parte interlocutory injunctive relief because the emails were reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations about being a phoenix company and involvement in tax evasion or misappropriation of Commonwealth funds; there was a serious question to be tried; damages might not be adequate given the risk to the plaintiff's client base; and the balance of convenience favoured temporary relief because the alleged publications arose from a commercial dispute, the defendants denied defaming the plaintiff, any interference with speech would be brief, and the s 9 issue did not preclude relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Ex Parte Summons for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Application' 'allegedly Defamatory Publication' 'corporate Defamation' 'truth Defence' 'free Speech' 'injurious Falsehood']
['defamation' 'injunctions' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Application' 'allegedly Defamatory Publication' 'corporate Defamation' 'truth Defence' 'free Speech' 'injurious Falsehood']

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; Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Ex Parte Summons for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had shown a serious question to be tried as to entitlement to final relief for allegedly defamatory publications.' "Whether damages would be an adequate remedy where the alleged publications risked dissipating the plaintiff's client base." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured an urgent ex parte injunction despite caution in defamation cases and the public interest in free speech.' "Whether the plaintiff's possible status as an excluded corporation under s 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) precluded interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to short ex parte interlocutory injunctive relief because the emails were reasonably capable of conveying the pleaded defamatory imputations about being a phoenix company and involvement in tax evasion or misappropriation of Commonwealth funds; there was a serious question to be tried; damages might not be adequate given the risk to the plaintiff's client base; and the balance of convenience favoured temporary relief because the alleged publications arose from a commercial dispute, the defendants denied defaming the plaintiff, any interference with speech would be brief, and the s 9 issue did not preclude relief.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief granted.

Orders

  • ['Defendants restrained from publishing specified imputations.' 'Defendants restrained from deleting, altering or modifying any system recording publication of specified imputations.' 'Proceedings to be brought back before the court promptly so the defendants may be heard as to whether the injunction should be...