The legal dangers of commercial blogging were highlighted last week when the Federal Court dismissed Fletcher's appeal that "his publication of an article on an internet blog was misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law contained in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL). " and ruling that he has to pay costs. The court had also ruled that the Article published on 27 April 2011 had to be removed from his blog, which when I looked into his blog has been done.
If you are interested in reading up on the case it is available click here or if you prefer in word format here
I agree with what the judge stated in his conclusion that "this dispute being far too costly and wasteful for the limited events it canvasses," I am not sure whether the judge is aware but Nextra tried to settle several times for a fraction of what this dispute will now cost. I agree as I think it's a massive of money for what it is although not Nextra after all who have won costs. The costs are huge two counsels who are QC and their time in court and preparing before the court, similarly their supporting counsels, solicitors on both sides, etc. and subsequently there are all these other costs that lawyers like to add like correspondence, reading, delegation and supervision, research, document management, collation, pagination and indexing, copying, preparation, etc. I would not be surprised if the Fletcher lost about a quarter of a million dollars just in this case, then there is the earlier case to consider so double that. There is almost certainly extra costs to come because they will probably end out in what is called taxation of costs. This money, I think should have been far better spent.
