Chompuchan v Srimongkol

[2026] NSWDC 256

NSW District Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. DEFAMATION — Facebook posts — whether published by defendant — first and second plaintiffs operate real estate business (through the corporate vehicle of the third plaintiff)
1. DEFAMATION — serious harm element — where a plaintiff is an excluded corporation — consideration of what is ‘serious financial loss’
1. DAMAGES — differentiation between individual plaintiffs and a corporate plaintiff
1. CIVIL PROCEDURE — consequences for proof of plaintiff’s claim when defence struck out for want of due dispatch

Serious financial loss under s 10A(2) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is a broader concept than special damage and may encompass damage to goodwill, loss of clients, downturn in sales, and management costs; it may in appropriate circumstances be inferred from the evidence without requiring expert forensic accounting evidence.
Where a defence has been struck out for want of due dispatch, the plaintiff must still present their case honestly and without misleading the court on material matters, but is not required to meet the higher disclosure standard applicable to ex parte injunction applications under Thomas A Edison v Bullock.
A permanent injunction restraining republication of defamatory imputations is available in the District Court under s 46(1) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), and is appropriate where the defendant's post-publication conduct demonstrates a real risk of repetition.