Domino’s bills amateur filmmaker $60,000 for court costs, confirms it will not back down

“You can’t just make any claim and attack a company without those claims having substance,” Meij said.
Actually, yes you can.
A company cannot sue for defamation, unless the company is “a not-for-profit company or a company with fewer than 10 employees that is not related to another company.”
So play the company, not the person, and you’re fine.

The law isn’t that black and white. There’s quite a few exceptions to that clause. For profit companies over 10 people have successfully sued for defamation in Australia.

Well this is embarassing for Dominos.

I was going to Dominos for dinner tonight – there’s $10 lost. Anyone else?

This is a PR f**k*p waiting for the media to push. Unlikely given the media spend though. Ridiculous that Dominos take her to court, the case is not proven and she has to foot the bill?

This is an Australian court ordering she pay these costs. Courts do not generally award costs against a litigant who they believe has acted reasonably. It would seem that her claim to have won is less than the whole story.

It appears from your article that this girl has already ‘narrowly avoided being held in contempt of court’.

That she ‘flat out refused’ to comply with this court order is not an act of defiance towards Domino’s but an act of defiance to the court which issued the order. That sounds pretty close to contempt of court to me and perhaps this silly girl should be as concerned by finding herself imprisoned by the court until she purges her contempt as by the possibility of Domino’s pursuing her for payment.

So I did have a win, Domino’s wanted me to hand over the film, not publish it for 2 weeks and wait for further instructions. I would call it a win because Domino’s dropped the injunction (because there was nothing as they claimed in the film) and it was published within 5 days.

Here is the full email that Simon refers to as “long and ranting”.

Hi Journos,

Domino’s wrote, asking me to pay $60,000 for their failed attempt to ban my film. Of course I flat out refused. They will pursue me probably to bankruptcy I expect.

I believe the men in the courtroom that day wanted to “teach me a lesson” which is if you question people more powerful than you, they will “put you back in your place”. I won’t be bullied or intimidated. I’m not the sort of person who knows about something terrible, and if I can do something about it, I don’t just sit by. The judge looked at me during every session that week. In the last session in which he ordered costs against me, he couldn’t meet my eye. (Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy).

1. The legal papers and my response are at the bottom of the email.

2. As well as the legal stuff below, I have a personal message for Don Meij, through you, because no one at Domino’s will speak to me, despite my requests.

Dear Don,

You have asked me to pay $60,000 because Domino’s failed to ban my film exposing your behavior. Does Domino’s try to bankrupt anyone who questions them or talks back? If you can pry the money from me I see you will donate it to a charity of your choice – giving yourself a nice tax break and PR spin for how you care about charity. Don, if you would like to donate $60k to charity, you are worth $100M, why don’t you reach into your own pocket and pay it yourself?

(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)

I want you to pay me the $60k personally and I transfer the money to charity, because I can be trusted to do the right thing, (Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy). I have been working with a Charity called One Girl for years and already donated $10,000 to them through a fundraising project I founded and ran solo for 2 years, winning a Women’s Weekly Magazine Grant for it. I was also nominated for a UTS University Human Rights Award for this project. I would like to donate to them.

Australia is not a dictatorship and Domino’s is not the dictator. Continuing to (Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy) There is free press in Australia and something called public interest to deal with situations exactly like this.

Don, instead of hiding behind lawyers, why don’t you act like a man (as a woman and / or any other person would do) and face this problem head on. Speak to me on camera and answer these serious allegations, view the proof. And then you have your opportunity to reply. I have a professional camera crew available.

Ignoring issues does not make things go away, it makes things worse. It’s not a big boys playground fight based on ego and pride. You have responsibilities to the business. It makes these sagas go on for longer and causes more damage to brands, as well as anyone involved either directly or indirectly, such as shareholders, franchisees and staff. Trying to intimidate with lawyers letters don’t scare people, it just makes people more determined to seek the truth, reveal the truth, and fight for justice. Domino’s is fueling the fire, not making it go away.

I look forward to your reply, and seeing you man up to speak to me on camera. I would admire you for interviewing with me and I believe the public would too.

Phoebe Stuart
(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)

Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2016
Subject: Re: Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited v Phoebe Stuart-Carberry

Dear (Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)

To G.

To the best of my knowledge, their is no such option as ‘not proven’ in any Australian civil proceedings.

Not Proven would seem to be an almost uniquely Scottish verdict in criminal matters where there is doubt in the court’s mind, A case with such a verdict can be reopened at any time upon presentation of new evidence.

Even in Scotland, I understand this is not a finding option in civil disputes.

Phoebe, you are sadly mistaken in your claim that Domino’s have asked you to pay $60k in legal costs.

An Australian court has ORDERED you to pay this amount because it has found that your behaviour was unreasonable and necessitated this action by Domino’s.

It is unheard of for an Australian court to award costs against a successful litigant who the courts consider has acted reasonably in mitigating costs and the need for legal action.

You are hardly a journalist but, if you were, you would understand that press freedom comes with responsibility of careful and considered research and publication in the public interest.

Your ill considered ramblings show you as incapable of fulfilling any of those responsibilities. You come across as a niaive, ill informed and myopic girl who, but for Domino’s graciously declining making application for you to be held in contempt of court, would be in a prison cell until you saw fit to purge your contempt.

i was astonished to read that you were in your 30’s. Your behaviour would be more suited to a poorly educated teenager.

You claim to seek open discussion. Why then do you delete all reasonably intelligible comments on your facebook page which question your absolute sense of self righteousness?

Hardly an example of open journalism from someone who sees themself as being the victor – prefering to promote the illusion that no one posting has any serious challenge to your claims.

Man, there seems to be a lot more to this story.

epic rant.

yup: Thorough with full detail or rant? That’s a matter of interpretation.

To Phoebe

Yep, the court has found against you and given judgement against you in the sum of $60,000.

At the end of the day, the court’s interpretation is the only one that matters. They concluded that you had been ‘arguably extortionate’. They found that you had come very close to being jailed for contempt and that the court hearing was entirely reasonable on behalf of Domino’s.

They awarded full costs against you …..not something Australian courts habitually do to winning litigants who have behaved reasonably and with integrity.

Hi Bob, let me address your concerns. Bob, please be respectful and stick to the case. It’s not ok to say these things about me “..this silly girl..ramblings…naive, ill informed and myopic girl…behavior would be more suited to a poorly educated teenager.” Bob, I will not tolerate personal insults that have nothing to do with the issue.

You also say “press freedom comes with responsibility of careful and considered research and publication in the public interest.

My response: Tthe doco provided hard evidence in the form of many, many documents to back up the multiple claims. Including the fact that (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons). If the claims are false and misleading as Don Meij says, why did Domino’s drop the injunction? Why didn’t Domino’s continue to pursue the injunction on these grounds of what they say is false and misleading information?

Bob, you say: “You claim to seek open discussion. Why then do you delete all reasonably intelligible comments on your Facebook page which question your absolute sense of self righteousness?

My response is: Please check Facebook, Reddit and YouTube for my conversations and many answers to those questioning me and the merits of the case. The only comments that I do delete are those that are nasty attacks on my personality that are not a discussion about the case. I have also deleted you because you are a fake profile, I know this because you have posted practically identical worded comments several times under the names of “Jane Davidson”, “bob” and “Default Name” on all of my social media pages.

Phoebe – I’m sure you’re lovely. And clearly “passionate.” But get some self-awareness.

Do you have a grasp of the law and legal process?
Have you read the judgement?
Especially the bit about “highly aggressive” communications?
Or the bit about being “‘arguably extortionate”?
Do you grasp how close you came to being found in contempt?
Why are you sending these daft emails to Domino’s when it’s the court that has made the order?

Whilst the judgement went in your favour based on the law, the court has clearly signalled to you that your actions of and around the case were a long, long way from appropriate. Hence the $60,000 costs order that Domino’s are perfectly entitled to claim, by law.

Learn the lesson that life is trying to teach you and consider winding your neck in, to at least within the law. Sadly this exercise casts you and therefore any merit your claims may have in a pitiful light.