In the recent unreported case of Moy v Isaac & Smith, featured in an article published by the Courier Mail on 15 November 2020, two online trolls were ordered to pay $150,000 to a wedding planner after creating a number of defamatory Facebook posts about her business.
Background to the defamatory social media slurs
Tristan Moy (Moy) is an Australian wedding planner who moved to Indonesia in 2014 to run a business planning weddings in Bali for Australian tourists. Stacey Lee Isaac (Isaac) owned and operated a bridal Facebook page and worked as a makeup artist in Melbourne. Kellie Maree Smith (Smith) is based in Queensland.
Between 2017 and 2018, Isaac shared four (4) Facebook posts about Moy and her business. The posts alluded to Moy having attempted to ‘sabotage’ previous weddings, and that Moy had caused Isaac to be deported from Bali. Smith shared four (4) Facebook posts which directly accused Moy of ruining Smith’s own wedding by trying to have the venue cancelled. Crucially, Smith had never met or been a client of Moy – so the statements were simply untrue. Isaac did Moy’s hair for her Bali wedding in 2010, but she was never a client of Moy’s. In an added twist, Isaac had started her own wedding business in Bali just two (2) months prior to the first Facebook post, which begs the question whether the motive for the posts was to further Isaac’s own business.
Represented by Australian Law Partners, Moy commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Queensland on the basis that the Facebook posts were defamatory and had ‘irretrievably damaged’ her established reputation in Indonesia and Australia. In her affidavit, Moy explained that the posts had caused a flow on effect, which resulted in further defamatory comments and reviews by strangers who had read the posts. Moy argued that this had caused her enormous embarrassment, stress and anxiety, and resulted in thousands of dollars in lost income.
Moy was seeking $A285,000 from the two (2) women over the Facebook posts. Moy made numerous attempts to settle the matter prior to proceeding to trial, all of which were declined by Isaac and Smith.
The Court’s findings
With respect to the basis for damages for defamation, Magistrate Smith referred to the case of Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [1998] 43 NSWLR 158 (Marsden) at [165], stating:
“The court awards damages for defamation for three purposes. Firstly, the damages serve to give the person who has been defamed some consolation for the personal distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by the publication. Secondly, the damages are reparations for the injury done to the personal and business reputation of the person defamed. Thirdly, the damages serve to vindicate the reputation of the person defamed.”
His Honour emphasised the fact that Isaac’s posts were not made privately on her own Facebook page, but instead were shared to the numerous bridal groups that she operated, resulting in a ‘grapevine effect’. This was supported by the contents of Moy’s affidavit. With respect to this, His Honour again referred to Marsden, which states at [205] that:
“The so-called “grapevine” effect recognises that the dissemination of defamatory material is rarely confined to those to whom it is immediately published. The harm caused to reputation does not come to an end with the publication. Past observations that it is “impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach” are apt to describe the effect of publication of defamatory matter on social media, where the defamation tends to spread very rapidly and might emerge “from its lurking place at some future date”, when, again, it has “a tendency to spread.”
His Honour also referred to Justice Bradley’s decision in O’Reilly v Edgar [2019] QSC 24 at [228]-[230] that:
“In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to identify the hurt and damage occasioned by each post. Rather, it is sensible to take account of the aggregate “harm” suffered by Mr O’Reilly by reason of all the defamatory publications taken together.”
On the basis of this, Justice Smith considered damages in a single sum, despite there being a combined total of eleven (11) posts by Isaac and Smith.
In order to compensate Moy for “the injury to her feelings, the stress, embarrassment, humiliation and the damage to her reputation”, His Honour awarded $100,000 against Isaac for general and aggravated damages and $50,000 against Smith for general damages.
Takeaways
This decision serves as a clear warning to those using Facebook or other social media platforms who think that it’s okay to post defamatory posts and that nothing can be done about it. Should users post anything defamatory about a business online, they may be liable for serious consequences including significant damages.
Links and further references
Legislation
Cases
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marden [1998] 43 NSWLR 158
O’Reilly v Edgar [2019] QSC 24
Further information about online business
If you need advice on protecting your business online, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights for online businesses
-
Computer code libraries and copyright ownership
The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.
-
New safety standards proposed for online platforms
The Australian Government has proposed an Online Safety Act that could significantly change the way businesses manage user-generated content online. Find out how this proposed Act could affect your business and how you can prepare for it.
-
A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled in favour of Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd, affirming that its disputed products fall under the exception of an Excluded Wagering Service as defined by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), clarifying the distinction between ‘bets’ and ‘games’.
-
Abhorrent violent content prohibited
Organizations hosting abhorrent violent material, such as terrorism, murder, torture, rape and kidnapping, now face hefty fines under the Criminal Code Amendment Act 2019 (Cth), up to 50,000 penalty units or 10% of annual turnover.
-
De-encryption laws: compelling tech giants to cooperate with law enforcement
The Australian Government is introducing encryption-related legislation that could have significant implications. Get the full scoop on what this Bill could mean for companies and citizens before it is officially announced.
-
Domain name disputes – the case of eazyjet.com
Learn more about domain name disputes and the evidence required to establish confusion, rights, and bad faith. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provide legal elements and remedies, and the implications of failing to respond to a complaint.
-
EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) – How to comply
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to Australian entities processing personal data of European Union (EU) citizens/residents. It outlines principles, notification obligations, penalties for non-compliance, and requirements for cross-border data transfers.
-
Software licences classified as “goods” under the ACL
This Federal Court case highlights the risks of supplying goods and services to Australian consumers. Companies should be aware of their legal obligations and seek advice to ensure their contractual terms comply with Australian Consumer Law. Find out more about the case and its implications.
-
Legal challenges arising from data loss
Organisations must protect confidential data from external and internal threats. Learn steps to secure data, potential data breach implications, and how a data breach notification bill may require affected entities to notify consumers.
