“My product is not toxic. That’s defamatory!”
___
A honey-making Co and its CEO kicked off injurious falsehood and defamation proceedings.
They wanted damages and orders restraining the D from making further publications.
The Ps complained about D saying:
- The Ps’ honey was toxic: [14]
- The Ps conspired with the judiciary and a consumer advocate magazine: [15], [20]
- There exists a “sex tape” showing the CEO discussing a sex act performed with an employee: [16]
The publications were made on the D’s website, Facebook and Twitter: [59]
The defendant put no evidence before the Court that the honey was indeed “toxic” or harmful: [11], [149]
The D (who was not represented by lawyers) did not raise usual defences, including truth, and indeed made a number of admissions in their defence: [53]
Working through the publication-identification-reputation matrix, the Court found the CEO had been defamed awarding $150K in damages: [135], [142]
The Co’s claim was in injurious falsehood, not defamation, meaning the Co had to prove the falsity of what was said: [146]
The Co did so, and proved malice, obtaining a “cautious” $25K in damages: [164]
The orders restraining further publication were made.
