JWR Productions Australia Pty Ltd v Duncan-Watt (No 2) [2020] FCA 236

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JWR Productions Australia Pty Ltd v Duncan-Watt (No 2) [2020] FCA 236 File numbers: NSD 266 of 2017 NSD 327 of 2017

Judge: THAWLEY J

Date of judgment: 5 March 2020

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – hybrid publication – Facebook Post providing a link to a newspaper article – whether imputations conveyed – one defamatory imputation conveyed DEFAMATION – defences – justification – defence made out – where respondent pleaded four contextual imputations – whether the alleged contextual imputations were conveyed – two contextual imputations conveyed which were substantially true – whether the contextual imputations operate as a complete or partial defence – fair comment and honest opinion – defence not made out – publication of public documents – defence not made out CONSUMER LAW – claim under Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law (ACL) for misleading or deceptive conduct –representations made to a journalist – representations in a Facebook Post which provided a link to a newspaper article – whether conduct was "in trade or commerce" – whether the representations were in fact conveyed by the relevant conduct – whether representation a statement of fact or opinion – whether the representations conveyed were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive CONSUMER LAW – claim under the ACL for misleading or deceptive conduct – whether website content conveyed representations about authorship of a novel – whether the conduct was in "trade or commerce" – whether the representations were in fact conveyed by the relevant conduct – claim for declaratory relief – whether any benefit to making of the declaration – whether financial loss or damage sustained from the conduct – declaratory relief refused COPYRIGHT – whether infringement of copyright – whether the work was an adaption – claim for injunctive relief – copyright claim dismissed COPYRIGHT – whether use of photographs on website was an infringement of copyright – whether copyright was assigned as alleged – whether licence granted – where photographs removed a reasonable time after demand TORTS – detinue – whether property wrongfully detained – whether sufficient demand made – whether respondent made clear and unqualified refusal to comply with the demand – whether the refusal to comply was unreasonable – whether goods were detained for a reasonable time