Social Media Defamation and Settlement Non-Disparagement: When Political Commentary Crosses the Line Into Actionable Imputations, and How Publication, Limitation Extensions, and Privilege Defences Decide Liability

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Plaintiff v Defendant [2025] WASC 345 (CIV 1840 of 2023), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of Western Australia (Civil Jurisdiction)

Presiding Judge: Tottle J

Cause of Action: Defamation; Conspiracy (lawful means conspiracy); Breach of Contract (non-disparagement term in deed of settlement)

Judgment Date: 27 August 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Defamation Act 2005 (WA) social media publications

Keyword 3: Publication and who is a publisher

Keyword 4: Qualified privilege and Lange political communication

Keyword 5: Limitation Act 2005 (WA) extension in defamation

Keyword 6: Settlement deed non-disparagement breach

Background

This proceeding arose from a high-profile workplace and political context, but the Court’s task was precise and legal: to determine what particular social media posts conveyed to ordinary readers, whether those conveyed meanings were defamatory, whether the Defendant was legally responsible as a publisher for each publication, and whether any pleaded statutory or common law defences defeated liability. The Court also had to decide whether a deed of settlement between the parties was breached by later online commentary, and whether an additional pleaded conspiracy claim could be established on the demanding requirement that the conspirators’ sole or predominant purpose was to injure the Plaintiff.

This was not a trial about public sentiment, nor a referendum on broader political conflict. It was a forensic examination of evidence, meaning, publication mechanics, pleaded defences, limitation rules, and contractual undertakings.

Core Disputes and Claims

1. Defamation: Meaning and liability for three clusters of social media publications:
   • A 4 July 2023 Instagram story, said to carry multiple defamatory imputations about the Plaintiff.
   • 20 July 2023 tweets and associated republications, said to carry a defamatory meaning about the Plaintiff’s attitude to victims.
   • A 27 January 2022 tweet posted by a third party, alleged to have been published with the Defendant’s participation such that she was a publisher for defamation law purposes.
2. Defences:
   • Justification (truth) and the limits of pleading alternative meanings.
   • Statutory qualified privilege under section 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (WA).
   • Lange qualified privilege for political communication.
   • Honest opinion and fair comment.
   • Limitation defence for the 27 January 2022 publication and whether time should be extended.
3. Contract:
   • Whether the 4 July 2023 Instagram story breached a settlement deed term prohibiting adverse, critical, or disparaging statements related to the defined dispute.
   • Whether injunctive relief should be granted.
4. Conspiracy:
   • Whether the Defendant and a third party reached an understanding whose sole or predominant purpose was to injure the Plaintiff.

The relief sought included damages (including aggravated damages), declaratory relief, and an injunction.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant formed within a ministerial office environment governed by the Commonwealth parliamentary staffing framework. The Defendant worked in the Plaintiff’s office for a short period. The factual backdrop included a serious criminal act committed by a colleague against the Defendant within the physical setting of the Plaintiff’s ministerial office. That historical event, and its aftermath across multiple fora, became heavily contested in public commentary over time.

Yet the Supreme Court proceeding addressed a narrower legal trigger: later publications on social media. The Court recorded that, in early 2021, the Defendant criticised the Plaintiff in media interviews, including allegations of a cover up and inadequate support, but the action before the Court was catalysed by later social media publications in July 2023, and an expanded pleading that sought to attach publication responsibility to the Defendant for a third party’s 27 January 2022 tweet, plus a late-added conspiracy claim.

This sequence matters because it demonstrates the practical reality of modern defamation disputes: reputational harm often arises not from one publication, but from a chain of online posts, reshared content, and cumulative narrative framing. For litigants, self-agency begins with recognising that each new post can be a fresh legal event, and that courts will isolate and analyse each publication on its own terms: its content, audience, timing, republication, and defences.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments (Plaintiff)

1. The publications themselves:
   • Screenshots, records, and contextual presentation of:
     • The 4 July 2023 Instagram story.
     • The 20 July 2023 tweets and their republications.
     • The 27 January 2022 tweet, plus evidence of the Defendant’s participation in its publication pathway.
2. Meaning evidence:
   • Submissions on natural and ordinary meaning: what an ordinary reasonable reader would take from the posts.
   • Where relevant, extrinsic facts to support pleaded true innuendo meanings.
3. Publication responsibility:
   • Evidence and submissions that the Defendant’s conduct amounted to participation sufficient to make her a publisher of the 27 January 2022 tweet, notwithstanding it was posted by another person.
4. Damages evidence:
   • Evidence of reputational harm, distress, and aggravation, including the circumstances of publication and alleged strategic intent to cause harm.
5. Contract evidence:
   • The deed of settlement and its non-disparagement clause, plus identification of the specific part of the 4 July 2023 Instagram story said to be related to the defined dispute.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments (Defendant)

1. Defences to defamation:
   • Truth or substantial truth (justification) and alternative meaning pleading.
   • Qualified privilege (statutory and Lange), including reasonableness and absence of malice.
   • Honest opinion and fair comment, arguing some impugned statements were evaluative rather than factual assertions.
2. Limitation defence:
   • Reliance on the one-year limitation period for defamation and opposition to any extension for the 27 January 2022 claim.
3. Contract response:
   • Contention that the relevant comment in the 4 July 2023 Instagram story was factual and not disparaging, and that truthful statements should not be caught.
4. Conspiracy response:
   • Denial that there was an understanding with the sole or predominant purpose of injuring the Plaintiff, even if there was coordination around public disclosure.

Core Dispute Points

1. Meaning: Did the posts convey imputations that a reasonable reader would understand as damaging to the Plaintiff’s reputation?

2. Publication: Was the Defendant legally responsible as a publisher for the 27 January 2022 tweet, despite another person pressing “post”?

3. Defences: Even if meanings were defamatory, did justification, privilege, or honest opinion defeat liability?

4. Limitation: Was it not reasonable in the circumstances for the Plaintiff to commence within one year, such that the Court must extend time under section 40 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA)?

5. Contract: Did the 4 July 2023 Instagram story amount to an adverse, critical, or disparaging statement related to the defined dispute, in breach of clause 10?

6. Conspiracy: Could the Plaintiff prove the high threshold that the conspirators’ sole or predominant purpose was to injure her?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits in defamation and related civil claims do more than recite facts: they build a narrative architecture that the Court must test against contemporaneous documents and probabilities. Here, the dispute required the Court to examine what was known at particular times, how people acted, and why.

Two practical affidavit dynamics emerge:

1. Competing reconstructions:
   • One party’s affidavit may present later interpretation as though it was contemporaneous reality.
   • The other party may rely on contemporaneous records and argue reconstruction is unreliable.
2. Strategic intent in drafting:
   • In a social media defamation dispute, an affidavit will often embed:
     • A chronology showing escalation and repetition.
     • Evidence of republication.
     • Evidence of knowledge, intent, and refusal to retract, to ground aggravated damages.

Strategic Intent: Why the Court’s Procedural Directions Matter

The Court’s approach illustrates a fundamental civil justice principle: credibility findings and reliability assessments depend on the best available evidence. Where a witness is not available to testify, and prior statements or transcripts are admitted, the Court must still reach independent conclusions. Procedural directions around what evidence is admitted, and how it is weighed, shape the litigation outcome because defamation turns on meaning, context, and credibility.

Self-agency lesson: if you are a litigant, your “best evidence” is rarely your later memory. It is your contemporaneous record: messages, emails, logs, screenshots, and consistent chronology.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final disposition, the Court made procedural arrangements consistent with a complex, multi-issue civil trial:
– Directions concerning admissibility of prior statements and transcripts where key participants were unfit to attend or give evidence.
– Directions facilitating the orderly determination of meaning, defences, limitation, damages, and additional causes of action.
– Directions managing pleadings expansion, including the late addition of the conspiracy claim.

The practical point is that in high-stakes civil litigation, procedure is not a formality. Procedure is strategy made lawful. Parties who treat directions as optional often lose credibility and momentum.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

In a defamation trial, cross-examination is not theatre. It is a controlled test of three things:
1. Precision: does the witness answer the question asked, or redirect to a preferred narrative?
2. Consistency: does the account align with contemporaneous documents?
3. Probability: does the account fit what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances?

Where public controversy surrounds the subject matter, the Court must separate sympathy, outrage, and political meaning from admissible evidence and pleaded issues. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates disciplined separation: a serious underlying event may be accepted as fact, yet later claims about other actors’ conduct may still be determined to be untrue, misleading, or unsupported.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation in this proceeding was not about abstract reputation. It was about:
– What the July 2023 posts actually conveyed.
– Whether the Defendant could establish truth or privilege in relation to particular imputations.
– Whether an online strategy and republication pattern aggravated harm.
– Whether coordination with a third party crossed the legal line into publication responsibility.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court identified a clear boundary between:
– What a person may have felt, and
– What can be alleged publicly as fact about another person’s conduct.

The Court’s analysis of allegations of cover up and mishandling, as they related to the Plaintiff, reflects this boundary. The Court described the cover up allegation as having no foundation in fact. It was determined that the legal evaluation must be anchored in what the evidence establishes, not in retrospectively formed beliefs.

“the allegation of a cover up had no foundation in fact”

This statement was determinative because, once the Court rejected the factual foundation of a central allegation, any attempt to justify imputations built on that allegation necessarily weakened. In defamation, one collapsed factual pillar can bring down an entire defence architecture.

Self-agency takeaway: if you are going to speak publicly in a way that imputes serious wrongdoing, you must be able to prove it, or you must frame it in a legally defensible way. “I believe” is not a shield if the publication conveys a factual assertion.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court’s final disposition can be stated at a high level as follows:

1. 4 July 2023 Instagram story:
   • The Court determined it conveyed multiple defamatory imputations about the Plaintiff.
   • The Defendant did not establish the pleaded defences.
   • The Plaintiff succeeded and was awarded damages including aggravated damages of AUD $180,000.
2. 20 July 2023 tweets:
   • The Court determined they conveyed a defamatory imputation.
   • The Defendant established defences including honest opinion, fair comment, and Lange qualified privilege.
   • The Plaintiff failed in respect of this publication.
3. 27 January 2022 tweet:
   • The Court determined the Defendant participated in publication such that she was a publisher for defamation purposes.
   • The limitation period was extended to permit the claim.
   • The Plaintiff succeeded and was awarded damages including aggravated damages of AUD $135,000.
4. Breach of contract:
   • The Court determined clause 10 of the deed of settlement was breached by the 4 July 2023 Instagram story.
   • Declaratory relief was ordered.
   • Injunctive relief was refused.
5. Conspiracy:
   • The Plaintiff failed to prove the Defendant and the third party had an understanding whose sole or predominant purpose was to injure the Plaintiff.
   • The conspiracy claim failed.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment is jurisprudentially valuable for modern Australian defamation practice because it demonstrates, in one integrated factual matrix, how courts treat:
– Social media meaning and republication,
– The boundary between political discourse and actionable imputations,
– The proof demands of justification,
– The structural discipline of privilege defences (including Lange),
– The statutory logic of limitation extensions in defamation,
– The separation between moral conflict and the tort of conspiracy.

It also illustrates a hard truth for litigants on both sides: a compelling public narrative is not a substitute for legal proof. The Court did not decide who “won” a broader cultural argument. It decided whether particular publications were defamatory and whether specific defences were made out.

Judgment Points

1. Meaning is the gateway issue, not an afterthought.
   • The Court approached meaning by focusing on what ordinary readers would take from the posts, including contextual cues like juxtaposed images and wording choices.
   • Practical lesson: online posts are read as a whole, not as isolated sentences. Visual context can supply meaning.
2. Publication is broader than authorship.
   • A person can be a publisher if they participate sufficiently in the process of publication, even if another person posts the final text.
   • Practical lesson: if you facilitate, coordinate, encourage, supply content, or strategically orchestrate publication, you may be exposed.
3. Justification demands proof of the imputation, not proof of background controversy.
   • The defence is not satisfied by showing the topic is contentious.
   • The defence is satisfied only if the defamatory sting is proved to be substantially true.
4. Qualified privilege is disciplined by reasonableness and purpose.
   • Statutory qualified privilege under section 30 requires proof of recipient interest, the informational character of the publication, and reasonableness.
   • Lange privilege protects political communication but still requires a legally structured approach.
5. Limitation extensions in defamation are rule-governed, not discretionary sympathy.
   • Section 40 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) imposes a precondition: it must be shown it was not reasonable to commence within one year.
   • Once satisfied, the Court must extend time, subject to the three-year absolute bar.
6. Conspiracy is not a convenient add-on.
   • Lawful means conspiracy requires proof that the conspirators’ sole or predominant purpose was to injure the claimant.
   • Evidence of hostility or intended political damage may exist, yet still fall short of this demanding purpose test.
7. Settlement non-disparagement clauses can capture more than falsehoods.
   • A clause drafted to prohibit adverse or critical statements can operate even where a speaker contends the statement is true, depending on construction and the defined dispute scope.

Legal Basis

1. Statutory qualified privilege: Defamation Act 2005 (WA) section 30
   • The statutory structure requires:
     • recipient interest or apparent interest,
     • publication in the course of giving information,
     • reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct,
     • and defeat by malice if proved.
2. Limitation in defamation: Limitation Act 2005 (WA) sections 15 and 40
   • One-year limitation for defamation, with power and duty to extend if the precondition is met, and an absolute three-year bar.
3. Contractual restraint: clause 10 of the deed of settlement
   • A non-disparagement clause prohibiting adverse, critical, or disparaging statements in any way related to the defined dispute.
4. Conspiracy: lawful means conspiracy principles
   • Existence of an understanding plus the demanding sole or predominant purpose to injure requirement.

Evidence Chain

Victory point 1: The Plaintiff isolated the actionable publications and forced the Court to analyse each publication separately.
– Evidence chain logic:
– Identify the exact post.
– Establish meaning.
– Establish publication responsibility.
– Meet any limitation hurdle.
– Then defeat pleaded defences with targeted factual findings.

Victory point 2: The Plaintiff benefited from the Court’s refusal to treat public controversy as proof.
– Where a party asserts serious misconduct, the Court looks for evidence that supports the asserted sting.
– Absence of foundation is fatal to justification.

Victory point 3: The limitation extension was framed as a statutory precondition question, not as a moral plea.
– The Plaintiff’s claim relating to the 27 January 2022 tweet required an extension because the action was commenced after one year.
– The Court’s reasoning followed the statutory logic: whether it was not reasonable to commence within one year, and the absolute three-year bar constraint.

Victory point 4: The contract claim succeeded because clause 10 was construed broadly.
– The clause captured adverse or critical statements, not merely disparagement.
– The Court identified the relevant sentence in the Instagram story as related to the defined dispute and found it was precisely what the clause was intended to prevent.

Victory point 5: The conspiracy claim failed because the purpose threshold was not met, even where political damage was intended.
– This is a critical cautionary precedent for pleading strategy: conspiracy is not proved merely because coordination and hostility exist.

Victory point 6: The Defendant succeeded on the 20 July 2023 tweets because the defence suite was properly available on those meanings.
– Honest opinion and privilege can succeed where the publication falls within political discourse and is structured in a way that law recognises as protected.
– This illustrates that outcomes can split across different posts: one set actionable, another protected.

Victory point 7: Aggravation in damages follows from conduct and circumstances, not from labels.
– Republishing, refusing to remove, and the strategic context of online publication can aggravate harm, depending on findings.

Victory point 8: The Court controlled the narrative through disciplined credibility and reliability analysis.
– Where evidence is contested, the Court anchors to reliable records and rejects speculation masquerading as fact.

Judicial Original Quotation

Context: The conspiracy claim required proof that injury to the Plaintiff was the sole or predominant purpose shared by the Defendant and the third party. The Court accepted coordination and an understanding as to public disclosure strategy, yet rejected the purpose threshold.

“I am not satisfied causing damage to the plaintiff was the sole or predominant purpose”

This statement was determinative because it identifies the exact legal hinge of lawful means conspiracy: even if an understanding exists and even if political damage was intended, the claim fails unless the dominant purpose requirement is proved.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1. Overreach risk: adding conspiracy late without a realistic path to proving the dominant purpose threshold.

– Civil litigation punishes pleading inflation. If a claim looks forensic rather than substantive, it can undermine credibility and costs outcomes, and it may distract from stronger claims.

1. Justification fragility: serious imputations require serious proof.

– Where a defence depends on proving a factual foundation that the Court rejects, the defence collapses.

1. Contract clause misunderstanding: treating non-disparagement as limited to false disparagement.

– A well-drafted clause can restrain adverse or critical statements regardless of asserted truth, within the defined dispute scope. If you sign it, you own it.

1. Online publication blindness: assuming “I did not post it” ends publisher risk.

– Defamation law can attach to participation in publication, not merely authorship.

Implications

1. Your voice is powerful. Use it with precision.
   If you want to hold institutions or individuals to account, you can do so without putting yourself at relatively high legal risk. Choose language that accurately describes what you can prove, and separate proven facts from contested assertions.

2. Evidence is your agency.
   Screenshots, timestamps, saved messages, and consistent chronology are not admin tasks. They are the foundation of your legal power. The person who controls records controls options.

3. “Protected speech” is not casual speech.
   Privilege and honest opinion are real protections, but they are structured protections. They tend to be determined by how you communicate, to whom, and whether you act reasonably.

4. Settlement terms are not symbolic.
   If you sign a non-disparagement clause, treat it like a live safety boundary. If you want future freedom to speak, negotiate that freedom at the time of settlement, not after.

5. Litigation choices are self-protection choices.
   You do not need to pursue every possible cause of action to be strong. You need the right causes, supported by the strongest proof, aligned with the legal thresholds.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a post is about politics, does that automatically protect it from defamation liability?
A: No. Political context can support Lange privilege or honest opinion in the right circumstances, but protection tends to be determined by the meaning conveyed, the reasonableness of publication conduct, and whether the post asserts damaging facts without adequate foundation.

Q2: Can someone be liable for a tweet they did not personally publish?
A: Yes, depending on evidence. A person may be found a publisher if they participate in publication in a legally material way, such as orchestrating, supplying content, encouraging, or coordinating the publication process.

Q3: If a defamation limitation period has passed, is the claim over?
A: Not necessarily. In Western Australia, the one-year limitation applies, but the Court may extend time if satisfied it was not reasonable to commence within one year, subject to an absolute three-year bar. The threshold is demanding and evidence-driven.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution — Social media defamation dispute with limitation extension, privilege defences, and settlement deed non-disparagement breach

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Core Test: Limitation, Jurisdiction, and Evidence Obligations in Civil Litigation

Step 1: Jurisdiction and proper cause
– Identify whether the Court has jurisdiction over:
– the parties,
– the publication reach,
– and the pleaded causes of action.
– In multi-forum disputes, ensure the claim is anchored to the specific publications and the local statutory scheme.

Step 2: Limitation period check
– Identify the limitation period applicable to each cause:
– Defamation limitation is strict and tends to be determined by publication date and the statutory scheme.
– For defamation in Western Australia:
– The one-year limitation period is a hard indicator.
– Extension is possible if it was not reasonable to commence within one year, but an absolute three-year bar applies.
– Practical self-agency action:
– Record the first publication date immediately.
– Seek advice early.
– Preserve evidence before content disappears.

Step 3: Identify the pleaded imputations with precision
– A claimant must define the defamatory meanings.
– A defendant must respond to those meanings and, if relying on justification, must plead and prove substantial truth of the sting.
– Self-agency action:
– Do not litigate vibes. Litigate imputations.

Step 4: Evidence preservation and disclosure
– Maintain a secure evidence folder:
– screenshots with visible timestamps,
– URL captures,
– platform account ownership data where available,
– records of republication and refusal to remove.
– Disclosure obligations require parties to produce relevant documents. Non-disclosure tends to be determined as damaging to credibility.

Step 5: Procedural fairness in civil process
– Even outside administrative law, civil procedure demands fairness:
– clear pleadings,
– proper notice,
– reasonable opportunity to respond to contentions.
– Self-agency action:
– Keep your pleadings narrow, accurate, and supported.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Promissory or proprietary estoppel
– In a settlement context, if one party makes a clear promise about future conduct and the other relies on it to their detriment, an estoppel argument may be available, depending on facts.
– In non-disparagement disputes, however, the primary path tends to be contractual enforcement, not estoppel.

Unjust enrichment and constructive trust
– Usually not the primary pathway in defamation disputes.
– May arise in cost recovery or benefit retention scenarios, but only where the legal elements are satisfied.

Procedural fairness style arguments
– In a civil defamation case, procedural fairness is largely managed through civil procedure rules, not judicial review doctrine.
– However, if a party is denied an opportunity to respond to new allegations or evidence, applications for directions, adjournment, or exclusion may be relevant.

Ancillary claims
– If a defamation claim is weak on meaning or defences, alternative pathways may include:
– contractual enforcement if a settlement deed exists,
– injunctive relief where a continuing breach is likely, noting injunction thresholds are demanding,
– or targeted concerns notices and negotiated retractions.

Abuse of process
– If an additional cause of action is pleaded primarily for forensic pressure without realistic prospects, abuse of process arguments may arise depending on the procedural context. The risk is relatively high where a claim’s legal threshold is known to be demanding and evidence is thin.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular thresholds
– Defamation:
– publication,
– identification,
– defamatory meaning,
– and no complete defence.
– Limitation in defamation:
– one-year period as a hard indicator,
– extension only if the statutory precondition is satisfied,
– absolute three-year bar.

Exceptional channels
– Limitation extension:
– where it was not reasonable to commence within one year, the Court must extend time, subject to the three-year cap.
– Contractual enforcement:
– declaratory relief may be available if breach is proved.
– injunction requires a reasonable apprehension of future breach and equitable discretion considerations.

Suggestion
Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you think you missed time. Calculate the dates precisely and compare them against the statutory extension pathway and the absolute bar. Conversely, do not assume an extension will be granted: build evidence explaining why earlier commencement was not reasonable.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:
– whether a person is a publisher by participation in publication,
– limitation extensions in defamation in Western Australia,
– the interaction between social media meaning and privilege defences,
– enforcement of non-disparagement clauses drafted to capture adverse or critical statements related to a defined dispute,
– and the high threshold for lawful means conspiracy.

Citation Method
As positive support:
– Where your matter involves multiple publications and mixed outcomes across defences, this authority supports a publication-by-publication analysis structure.
– Where limitation extension is contested, this authority supports a statutory precondition framing that is evidence-driven.

As a distinguishing reference:
– If an opposing party cites this case, emphasise factual differences in:
– the precise wording and context of the publication,
– whether the communication was directed to recipients with a defined interest,
– steps taken to verify and to present the other side,
– and the extent of participation in publication mechanics.

Anonymisation Rule
In submissions and public summaries, use procedural titles such as Plaintiff and Defendant, and avoid personal names unless strictly necessary for formal citation requirements.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates a clear principle: in Australian civil justice, self-protection and self-agency come from disciplined language, disciplined evidence, and disciplined choices. Social media feels instantaneous, but legal accountability is deliberate, structured, and evidence-driven.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Plaintiff v Defendant [2025] WASC 345), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.