Category Archives: Defamatory meaning

Dank’s defamation juggernaut faces first hurdles: [2013] NSWSC 1122; [2013] NSWSC 1064

The biggest name in Australian sport this year is not a footballer, a cricketer or even an athlete. The biggest name in Australian sport is Dr Stephen Dank, a “sports scientist”.  He is not a medical doctor, but in 2011 … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, imputations, Strike out application | Tagged | Leave a comment

English Tweet not so Innocent: Lord McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB)

In England, Lord McAlpine is a former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and a former Party Treasurer. He was a close aide to Margaret Thatcher during her time as Prime Minister and he had a significant political profile in … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hong Kong newspaper keeps its damages: Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd & Kwan v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd & Ors, in the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Final Appeal No. 1 of 2012, 26 September 2012

As common as Hayley’s Comet, in Hong Kong, the defamation jury trial appears about once every 80 years. So although this particular decision was some months ago, I don’t think I will be around in 2093 for the next one, … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Defamatory meaning, Trial | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Emphatic win for Aspergers’ Advocate: Gluyas v John Best Junior [2013] VSC 3

Now 47, Philip Gluyas was 31 when he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. On the one hand, Asperger’s can mean that a person has difficulties empathizing with people and dealing with social interactions that many people take forgranted. On the … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Defamatory meaning, Trial | Tagged , | 1 Comment

$200,000: Trkulja’s Second Big Win to Send Google into a Frenzy: Trkulja v Google Inc [2012] VSC [2012] VSC 533

In Silicon Valley, Google’s legal representatives will now be acquainting themselves with Australian defamation law and grimacing a lot, as for what seems to be the first time, a common law court has determined that, for the purposes of defamation, … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Defamatory meaning, Publication, Trial | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Scottish comic wins serious jury verdict: Frankie Boyle v The Daily Mirror

In England, Frankie Boyle is a controversial Scottish comedian who swears a lot, grows fuzzy red beards and gets in trouble because he doesn’t know when he has crossed the line.  While he would have been happy to have been … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Defamatory meaning, Fair comment, Trial | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

High Court rules on Replying to an Attack: Harbour Radio P/L v Trad [2012] HCA 44

On 18 December 2005, about a week after the Cronulla Riots, Keysar Trad was one of the speakers at a “peace rally” in front of 5000 people at Hyde Park in Sydney. He said this: “I never lost my faith … Continue reading

Posted in contextual truth, Defamatory meaning, Malice, News, Qualified privilege, reply to attack, Truth | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Mick Molloy still not funny: Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] SASFC 99

With the 2012 AFL Grand Final only a few days away, and the writer’s team, Hawthorn, playing off for the title against the Sydney Swans, it is about time this blog found a way to weave the mighty Hawks into … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, Trial | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Blogging in Canada goes back to trial: Baglow v Smith [2012] ONCA 407

Mr Baglow, a retired public servant in Canada, operates a left-wing blog called “Dawg’s Blawg”, where he used the pseudonym, Dr Blawg. Roger Smith is a right-wing kind of guy who writes on blogs like “Free Dominion” and others. If he … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, imputations, Strike out application | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Child care employer taught $150,000 lesson: Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW v Manefield [2012] NSWCA 123

  The Association of Quality Child Care Centres in NSW was an incorporated association with an executive committee of 10 members. Bruce Manefield was the Executive officer from 7 February 2006 until 16 May 2008 and is the plaintiff in … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Defamatory meaning, Qualified privilege, Reciprocal duty-interest, Trial | Tagged | 1 Comment