Under Australian defamation law, the The first defendant's post was read by 4,221 people while it remained

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Under Australian defamation law, the The first defendant's post was read by 4,221 people while it remained on Nitter until about 1pm on publication of material on the Internet occurs in the place where the material is downloaded or read by 12 June 2023. Internet users (Dow Jones or Co Inc . Gatwick [2002] HCA 56; 210 CLR. 575). The second defendant's post was read by 367 people while it remained on Nitter until about 5pm on 12 June 2023 . The defendants had knowledge of the falsity of the imputations contained in the posts. The imputations harmed the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendants have not made an offer to make amends under the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic). AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS: (a) An injunction. (b) Damages. Signed The statement of claim was filed on 14 June 2023, along with a writ, the attachments specified in the statement of claim and the certificates required by the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). After filing the writ and statement of claim, Jack engaged process servers to serve them on the defendants. The process servers attended Adesina and Sade's residential address in Brisbane on 15 June 2023 but only Sade was home. Adesina and her parents had boarded a flight to Nigeria earlier that day to visit the sisters' grandparents during Adesina's university holidays and planned to be abroad for a month. The process server handed copies of the writ and statement of claim to Sade and said, "you and your sister have been served." Sade responded, "I'll give this to Adesina when she gets back." Over the next week, Minister Jim Smith's secretary, Melissa Alessandra, continued to monitor Adesina and Sade's Nitter accounts and observed that Adesina was posting daily photos of her holiday in Nigeria, confirming Sade's story. On 26 June 2023, Minister Smith received an email from Adesina and Sade's mother stating, "I can't believe you are suing my little girls! This will discourage young people from getting involved in politics. I would expect better from a Minister!

QUESTIONS

1. In what respect has Minister Jim Smith and his lawyer Jack Darryl breached the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)? What may be the consequence of their breaches?

2. In what respects was the filing and contents of the statement of claim defective under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and/ or the Civil Procedure _Act 2010 (Vic)? What can the defendants do about the defective statement of claim?

3. Adesina and Sade feel they are too busy with their studies to attend court in Melbourne. Is there Activa a way for them to have the proceedings transferred to Brisbane, where they both ordinarily reside, and Go to S what is the likely result if this request was made?