Defamation — formal proof hearing — social media — proper service — District Court Act 2016, ss 74, 80 & 83 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 1.3, 6.22, 7.69 & 15.9 — Millman Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Logan [2006] DCR 317. The plaintiffs sued the defendant in defamation for damages as a result of comments made by the defendant on the social media platform "WeChat". The plaintiffs sought a total of $450,000 for the five causes of action. There were five issues before Judge: (a) Was the amended statement of claim properly served? (b) Did the Court have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claim (in exceeding $350,000)? (c) Did the Court have sufficient information to determine the defamation claim? (d) Was there sufficient harm? (e) What damages, if any, should be awarded? On the first matter, the Judge held that the original claim was properly served and as there were no material changes between the amended claim and the original, the the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed to seek judgment through formal proof. On the second matter, the Judge found that a plain reading of s 83(2) of the District Court Act allowed for a single proceeding with multiple causes of action (where the total exceeds the $350,000 jurisdiction of the Court), therefore, the Court had jurisdiction. On the third matter, the Judge found there was sufficient information to determine defamation based on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and, fourthly, that there was harm to the plaintiffs' reputation. Finally, on the fifth matter, damages, the Judge found the appropriate award was $1000 for each plaintiff. The Judge reserved opinion on costs, urging the parties to settle that matter outside Court. Judgment Date: 24 August 2018.