A recent case, Musicki v De Tonnerre [2023] FCA 222, provides insight on the topic of how the Federal Court of Australia deals with defamation cases that are not defended.

This blog post discusses the key points from the case and the principles that guide the court's decision-making process in defamation cases involving default judgments.

Background

In Musicki v De Tonnerre, the applicant sought judgment in her favour due to the respondent's failure to appear or file a defence as ordered by the court.

The case involved a defamatory Google review about the applicant's surgical practice, which was later revealed to be posted by a former medical student of the applicant.

The respondent was found to be in default and the court decided to give judgment in favour of the applicant, limited to the defamation action.

Relevant Principles

The Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) outline the circumstances in which a party is considered to be in default and the potential orders that the court can make in such situations.

The court's power to give summary judgment against a defaulting party is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously.

In Chamberlain Group, Inc v Giant Alarm System Co, Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1606, the court outlined the principles to be followed when considering default judgments. The court must be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim. This requirement means that the court must be satisfied that "on the face of the statement of claim" the applicant is entitled to the relief sought.

Applying the Principles

In Musicki v De Tonnerre, the court found the respondent to be in default due to their failure to file a notice of address for service, a defence in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, and a defence in compliance with the court's orders.

The court determined that there was no basis to assume the respondent's non-compliance was accidental or justifiable.

The court then considered whether the applicant had proven her defamation claim.

It was satisfied that the respondent had published the defamatory Google review and that it contained the imputations pleaded by the applicant.

The court also found that the applicant had suffered damage to her reputation.

Key take-aways

Musicki v De Tonnerre demonstrates the Federal Court of Australia's approach to default judgments in defamation cases.
The court exercises its discretion cautiously and carefully considers whether the applicant has proven their claim.
In cases where a respondent is found to be in default, the court may grant judgment in favour of the applicant, as demonstrated in this case.