Occasionally, I published an article which discusses defamation law in the context of a real life defamation case. Today, I am writing about the Victorian County Court case of Wang v Qin [2021] VCC 1906 (the Wang Case).
Defamation disputes arise out of and from all manner of relationships. From neighbourly defamation disputes involving persons on the same street; defamation disputes involving members of an owner corporation’s committee members, to journalists and mass media corporations defaming the ordinary person on the street by including his photograph in an article about a completely different person charged with a serious offence, such as murder, in the news.
Personal relationships are no different when they go bad, and more often than not, end up in court for defamation involving a wide variety of wild accusatory and defamatory statements. This was demonstrated in a case (which occurred before the introduction of serious harm), in the Wang Case.
In the Wang Case, the plaintiff, Mr Wang, a property developer had met the defendant, Ms Lei Qin, a real estate agent, on a dating site known as “Seeking Arrangements” in early 2019.
Seeking Arrangements is not your typical dating website, in that, its purpose was less focused on long-term, romantic or monogamous relationships, but rather, a meeting place whereby sugar daddies or sugar mummies could meet sugar babies. In essence, it was a site where people would meet to exchange companionship or sexual favours, usually in return money or gifts.
After Mr Wang and Ms Lei met they commenced a sexual relationship until about November 2019, when Mr Wang blocked Ms Lei on WeChat, a Chinese instant messaging application.
They did not communicate with one another again until 25 January 2020, when Mr Wang unblocked Ms Lei to wish her a happy new year, and after which, for a brief period of time, they recommenced having sex with one another, until Mr Wang blocked Ms Lei once again.
For matters which are not relevant to this article, Ms Lei became angry with Mr Wang and established a WeChat Group called “Expose Scum Man Barry”. Barry was Mr Wang’s English first name i.e., “Barry Wang”.
The group included a number of women, all of whom discussed their personal experiences with Mr Wang, some of whom disclosed that they were having a sexual relationship with Mr Wang at the same time that Ms Lei was sleeping with Mr Wang.
This caused Ms Lei to become angry and publish two (2) defamatory statements about Mr Wang on a group on WeChat called Australian Village Gossiper. Those articles were dated 1 April 2020 and 1 May 2020 and imputed, amongst other things, that Mr Wang:
- is immoral;
- is a scammer;
- is a sexual predator;
- makes women submit to sexual activity when they are drunk;
- is manipulative;
- engages in mind games with women;
- took financial advantage of Lei Qin;
- lied to and deceived Lei Qin;
- sought to emotionally control Lei Qin;
- is an expert pick up artist;
- misrepresents his romantic attentions for personal gain;
- is malicious in his behaviour towards women; and
- tries to emotionally control women.
Mr Wang became aware of the articles when it was brought to his attention by a friend, and this caused Mr Wang to issue Ms Lei with a concerns notice seeking an apology and retraction. However, Ms Lei did not provide either of those things, and accordingly, Mr Wang then issued proceedings in defamation against Ms Lei.
Ms Lei relied upon three (3) defences during the course of the trial, namely:
- that the imputations were true;
- fair comment at common law; and
- triviality.
Ultimately, Her Honour, Judge Clayton, found the various imputations arising out of the articles to be carried by them, that they were defamatory, and that they were of and concerning Mr Wang.
Further, Her Honour found that:
- Mr Wang’s evidence was, in the most part, credible and reliable, and that he made appropriate concessions as to dates and times and otherwise as necessary; and
- Ms Lei felt greatly wronged and justified in publishing the articles, that some of her evidence strained credulity, and that, notwithstanding that she was a successful and highly intelligent woman, she presented as immature and childish.
After considering all of the facts of the case, Her Honour dismissed the Ms Lei’s pleaded case, and awarded Mr Wang $150,000.00, inclusive of aggravated damages, for Ms Lei’s likely knowledge and involvement in attempting to intimidate Mr Wang by having three (3) men visit his house late one night. The evidence led at trial, in relation to this, was given by Ms Qin’s father, who said he arranged that meeting as a form of ‘mediation’.
Moral of the story
This case demonstrates that when intimate or other personal relationships, outside of the context of business relationships or friendships, goes wrong, an aggrieved party, for a variety of reasons, may published very damaging, defamatory statements about the other person, who they feel has wronged them.
Have you been defamed by an ex-partner, ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend?
If you have been defamed by an ex-part or previous spouse, Allen Law can help you to stop the damage to your reputation. Given the nature of defamation, especially defamation involving intimidate details of another person and/or their relationship with others, it is important to act quickly.
Contact us today to see how we can help.
Phone: (03) 7020 6563
Email: enquiries@allenlawyers.com.au
Website: www.allenlawyers.com.au
Disclaimer: This article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Allen Law for advice tailored to your particular situation.
