In a defamation appeal arising from newspaper and social media publications targeting the respondent, the appellants challenged liability, damages, costs, and the scope of a permanent injunction.
The Court of Appeal held that statute-barred earlier publications were admitted only for background and context, that the proceeding properly continued under the ordinary procedure after the defence objected to Rule 76, and that damages in defamation were presumed once the elements of the tort were established.
However, the court found the permanent injunction impermissibly broad, disproportionate, and insufficiently precise for enforcement.
The appeal was therefore allowed in part only to set aside and remit the injunctive term for properly defined wording, with appeal costs awarded to the appellants.
