A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and Twitter, accusing her of supporting paedophiles, being a fraud, falsely claiming to be a psychologist, endorsing domestic violence offenders, and other harmful claims.
Justice Chen (Chen J) found that the publications “caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the person” [109] as provided in section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). The Court held that the imputations seriously harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, particularly her professional integrity. Additionally, the Court considered the prolonged and intensified harm caused by the defendant’s failure to apologise and continued publication of defamatory statements, even after legal proceedings began.
Chen J relied on case law in his decision to grant a permanent and mandatory injunction, prohibiting the defendant from publishing further defamatory material and to remove the publications. This decision was influenced by the defendant’s persistent defiance, disregard for legal proceedings, and failure to retract defamatory statements. The Court found that there was a significant risk of ongoing harm due the defendant’s non-compliance, justifying the need for an injunction to prevent further damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.
This case highlights the key principles in proving defamation, particularly under section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). To establish defamation, the plaintiff must show that the material caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. Furthermore, higher damages may be awarded when the defendant refuses to apologise or continues to publish defamatory material. Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275 also demonstrates when an injunction may be granted – especially when there is a real risk of ongoing defamation due to the defendant’s defiance and non-compliance with legal proceedings.
By Miranda Smith, Solicitor, McAuley Lawyers
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.