Man suing ex for ‘defamatory’ Facebook post loses court battle
A day later, the man contacted his ex again and said he had legal advice that “the Facebook message is illegal and considered defamation of character because it explicitly mentions me by name and accuses me of stalking which I have not done”.
“So if it isn’t removed in the next 24 hours I will be taking legal action against you which will probably involve an order against you which will impact your ability to get a job.”
Gibson noted the two men “commenced a sexual relationship when the plaintiff was 31 years old and the defendant was 16 years old”, and each “accuses the other of stalking and harassment”. The men gave different evidence about when and how their relationship ended.
The older man filed District Court defamation proceedings against his former partner, who is now in his 20s, a year after the Facebook post, in May 2022.
The court heard the man also reported his ex to the police in July 2022, shortly after he filed the defamation proceedings, and alleged his ex had uploaded explicit videos of him on Pornhub in 2019 and 2020 without his permission.
Loading
Gibson noted that the man’s ex did delete the Facebook post after being asked to do so. He also contacted two of their mutual friends, “saying that, while he was not saying that what he had said was untrue, it should be borne in mind that the plaintiff had helped him through tough times and had made a lot of sacrifices to help him”.
The judge said there “were, at most, 52 followers” on Facebook who might have read the post.
The author of the Facebook post applied to the District Court to have the defamation case struck out on a series of bases, including that the proceedings were brought “to intimidate and harass [him] … as part of an ongoing campaign”.
The judge ruled in his favour on this basis. Gibson found that documents filed in court by the plaintiff made it clear he was “obsessed by his feelings for the defendant, and is using this litigation for that purpose rather than for vindication” of his reputation.
“I am satisfied from this material that the plaintiff is relying upon this litigation as a way of keeping pressure on the defendant, not only to remain in contact with him, but also to return to his former servile role,” Gibson said.
The judge noted that a separate case relating to a second Facebook post had been foreshadowed, but it was not yet clear if it would proceed.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
