DEFAMATION - where respondent was alleged to have posted online publications in the form of reviews and commentary containing defamatory imputations concerning the applicant and his surgical practice - where online publications were made using false names - where respondent was unable to be personally served by the applicant - where respondent failed to file a defence or appear but service deemed to have been effected - where respondent had previously admitted to being responsible for some of the publications - whether online publications contained defamatory imputations - whether publications conveyed imputations that the applicant was dishonest, unethical and incompetent - where imputations were found to have been conveyed - where imputations conveyed in the online publications were found to be defamatory
DAMAGES - where applicant was found to have been defamed by online publications - where damages and injunctive relief sought for defamation - where applicant was found to have suffered substantial loss or damage as a result of the defamatory publications - relevant principles regarding the assessment of damages for defamation - where damage to the applicant as a result of defamation significantly affected the applicant's personal, business and professional reputation - where defamatory publications caused hurt to feelings and emotional and mental distress to the applicant - where applicant awarded compensatory and aggravated damages - where applicant granted permanent injunctive relief restraining respondent from republishing content containing defamatory imputations
↧