NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Kaplan v Go Daddy Group & 2 Ors [2005] NSWSC 636
HEARING DATE(S) : 23/06/05
JUDGMENT DATE : 24 June 2005
DECISION : See para 49 of judgment.
CATCHWORDS : TORT - Injurious falsehood - Second defendant established blog website under a name disparaging of second plaintiff and invited comments - Prima facie case of malice and intention to cause damage - Whether serious question to be tried that second defendant was the author or publisher of comments posted to website - Serious question whether statements or imputations conveyed were false. - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory injunctions - Whether special rule in relation to the restraint of defamatory publications applicable - Balance of convenience - Form of injunction - Injunction continued.
LEGISLATION CITED : Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Chappell v TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited (1988) 14 NSWLR 153 Trewenack v Clippers Anchorage Pty Ltd (1983) Ritchie Practice Decisions 13,030 Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680 CASES CITED : Swimsure Laboratories Pty Ltd v McDonald [1979] 2 NSWLR 796 Palmer Bruyn and Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388 Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404 Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited [2001] QB 201; [1999] 4 All ER 342 Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818; 2 All ER 204
Adam Kaplan & Anor PARTIES : v The Go Daddy Group Inc & 2 Ors
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3528/05
Plaintiffs: A Radojev COUNSEL : Defendants: D Robertson
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate