Inserve Australia Ltd v Kinane

[2018] QCA 116

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Civil contempt
4. › Breach of interlocutory injunction
5. › Prohibitory order restraining publication to general public
6. › Whether failure to remove existing internet posts constitutes breach of prohibitory order
7. › Whether terms of order clear and unambiguous
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Contempt
3. › Civil contempt
4. › Elements of contempt
5. › Publication to the general public
6. › Whether viewing by person instructed to search for posts constitutes publication to general public
7. › Whether single LinkedIn message to identified individual constitutes publication to general public
1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Internet publication
4. › Meaning of 'publish' in context of prohibitory injunction in defamation proceedings
5. › Whether material must be downloaded and comprehended to constitute publication
6. › Whether inference of publication can be drawn from availability on internet
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › District Court of Queensland
4. › Whether leave should be granted to prevent substantial injustice
5. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)

Quick Take

A prohibitory injunction restraining a party from 'publishing to the general public' defamatory material does not, without more, impose a mandatory obligation to remove existing internet posts. In contempt proceedings for breach of such an order, the term 'publish' in an order made in defamation proceedings should be given its defamation law meaning, requiring that the material be downloaded and comprehended by a recipient. Viewing of internet posts by a person instructed to search for them in the course of employment at the applicant's solicitors does not constitute publication to 'the general public'. A single LinkedIn message to an identified individual does not constitute publication to 'the general public'.