Plaintiffs v Defendants

2 The ACL claim relies on allegations that the defendants made six different representations to the plaintiffs and group members that were misleading or deceptive. Relevantly, the representations include the 'Pre-Eminence Representation', 'Excellent Service Representation', and 'Plastic Surgeon Representation'. The plaintiffs allege these representations were conveyed to group members through conduct that included publishing content on social media accounts.

3 On 14 November 2024, a trial judge gave the plaintiffs leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim that included the ACL claim ('ASOC').[1] The defendants appealed part of that ruling on grounds including that the judge erred in permitting the plaintiffs to plead allegations relating to unidentified material published on social media accounts that allegedly conveyed the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations. There was no ground of appeal concerning the Plastic Surgeon Representation. In a judgment delivered on 19 September 2025,[2] the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the defendants on the above ground. The Court said that any dispute about amendments required to bring the ASOC into compliance with the orders it made should be resolved by the trial division.

4 The Court of Appeal referred with approval to an earlier ruling in the proceeding by John Dixon J in which his Honour noted in relation to the ACL claim as then pleaded that the plaintiffs had not identified what statements they had read on particular social media accounts or their best recollection of the contents of those statements.[3] The Court noted there had been no attempt by the plaintiffs to set out the gist of the content of social media posts that they saw or read that allegedly conveyed the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations. The Court concluded that if the pleading remained in its current form the defendant doctors would be required to face allegations that do not disclose a cause of action, and to make discovery of documents they would not otherwise be required to discover.

5 There is no dispute between the parties about the deletions and amendments required to the ASOC in respect of the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment.

6 The remaining dispute concerns the Plastic Surgeon Representation and centres on paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ASOC. In those paragraphs, the plaintiffs propose to maintain the following pleading:[4]

1. Lombardo accessed material published by Aronov on social media, read that material and the Plastic Surgeon Representations that Aronov made to potential patients ... were thereby conveyed to Lombardo; and
2. Bonnici accessed material published by Aronov and, separately, Wells on social media, read that material, and the Plastic Surgeon Representations that Aronov and, separately, Wells made to potential patients ... were thereby conveyed to Bonnici.

As to the allegation at subparagraph (e), Lombardo maintained an Instagram account and commenced 'following' Dr Aronov's Instagram profile at "@drdanielaronov" in or around 18 March 2021. Lombardo was exposed to Dr Aronov's Instagram posts repeatedly thereafter until around 4 November 2021. Lombardo did not 'follow' Dr Aronov's Tik Tok account but Dr Aronov's re-posted on Instagram videos that had been posted on Tik Tok, which was apparent to Lombardo because of the 'Tik Tok' emblem that appeared on such videos. Further particulars of the posts that Lombardo read will be provided after discovery.

As to the allegation at (f), Bonnici maintained an Instagram account. Bonnici commenced 'following' Dr Aronov's Instagram profile at "@drdanielaronov" on a date that she can't recall but prior to around April 2021, and commenced 'following' Dr Wells's Instagram profile "@drryanwells" from around 8 April 2021. Bonnici was exposed to Dr Aronov's and Dr Wells's Instagram posts repeatedly at all material times thereafter. Bonnici did not 'follow' Aronov's Tik Tok account but Dr Aronov re-posted on Instagram videos that had been posted on Tik Tok, which was apparent to Bonnici because of the 'Tik Tok' emblem that appeared on such videos. Further particulars of the posts that Bonnici read will be provided after discovery.

1. Some or all of the Group Members accessed material published by:

2. Aronov on social media;

3. Wells on social media;

and the Plastic Surgeon Representation was thereby conveyed to Group Members.

The plaintiffs submitted the ground of appeal allowed by the Court of Appeal did not concern the remaining allegations in paragraphs 103 and 104 and there was no basis for striking out those paragraphs.

7 The third to sixth defendants submitted that the Plastic Surgeon Representation social media post allegations suffered the same defect identified by the Court of Appeal in respect of the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations, and that paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ASOC should be struck out on the basis that they were contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal.

8 I reject the third to sixth defendants submissions for two reasons.

9 First, after a contested hearing in which the defendants challenged the ACL claim, the plaintiffs were given leave to file and serve a statement of claim that included the Plastic Surgeon Representation social media post allegations. That part of the trial judge's ruling was not challenged on appeal. There is no basis for striking out the remaining allegations in paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ASOC that relate to the Plastic Surgeon Representation that were allowed by the trial judge following the contested hearing and not subject to appeal.

10 Second, there is a material difference between the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations, and the Plastic Surgeon Representation relevant to understanding the gist of the content of social media posts that allegedly conveyed those representations. The representations are described in the ASOC as follows:

1. Lanzer, the Other Cosmetic Doctor Defendants and Wong were pre-eminent and highly skilled in the performance of cosmetic surgery (Pre-Eminence Representation);
2. Lanzer, the Other Cosmetic Doctor Defendants and Wong were plastic surgeons (Plastic Surgeon Representation);

...

1. DCSS, Lanzer, the Other Cosmetic Doctor Defendants and Wong provided a service that was consistently excellent and apt to achieve consistently excellent results (the Excellent Service Representation)[.]

The definition of the Plastic Surgeon Representation is far more clear-cut and precise than the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations definitions.

11 The pleaded examples of social media posts that were said to convey the Plastic Surgeon Representation rely on the precision of the definition in that they allegedly contain the words '#plasticsurgeon #plasticsurgery'. That understanding is confirmed in the reasons of the trial judge which relevantly include:

In the case of the Plastic Surgeon Representation it was conveyed by the phrase '#plasticsurgeon' in the social media posts.[5]

...

In circumstances where the second defendant's defence admits that neither he nor the other cosmetic doctor defendants were plastic surgeons, it is difficult to see how particulars identifying '#plasticsurgeon' are not presently adequate particulars of the Plastic Surgeon Representation in social media posts.[6]

12 The Court of Appeal said, referring to the limit of the defendants' challenge to the ASOC:

However, such success would not remove the requirement for discovery of social media posts altogether, because social media posts containing, for example, the phrase '#plasticsurgery' or '#plasticsurgeon' would still be required to be discovered in relation to the allegation that the 'Plastic Surgeon Representation' was made in social media posts, which allegation was not the subject of challenge on the application for leave to appeal.[7]

...

Nor does it challenge the pleading in so far as it alleges that the 'Plastic Surgeon Representation' was conveyed by content published in social media posts, because the pleading alleges that representation to have been conveyed by specific, identified phrases, namely '#plasticsurgery' and '#plasticsurgeon'.[8]

13 Paragraphs 103 and 104 of the ASOC do not limit the Plastic Surgeon Representation social media posts to those containing the words '#plasticsurgeon' or '#plasticsurgery'. However, those are the two examples particularised in the pleading and I understand that to be the gist of the social media posts the plaintiffs rely on as conveying that representation. On that basis, the Plastic Surgery Representation social media post allegations do not suffer from the pleading defect identified by the Court of Appeal in respect of the Pre-Eminence and Excellent Service Representations.

14 The categories of documents to be discovered by the defendants were fixed following a ruling by an associate judge.[9] In the Court of Appeal, it was recognised that success on appeal by the defendants would potentially have some impact on the scope of discovery that had been ordered.

15 The discovery dispute concerns the following categories of discovery:

1. Content or documents evidencing the content appearing on the Instagram account '@drlanzer' and the TikTok account '@drlanzerandassociates' in the period between January 2020 through to 24 January 2022 that:

(a) are the 'examples of posts' referred to at ASOC [94]; or

(b) contains the caption #plasticsurgery; or

(c) includes 'before' and 'after' photos or videos of patients (particulars to ASOC [94]).

1. Content or documents evidencing the content appearing on the Instagram account @drdanielaronov and the TikTok @dr.danielaronov account in the period between January 2020 through to 24 January 2022 that:

(a) are the 'examples of posts' referred to at ASOC [95]; or

(b) contains the caption #plasticsurgery; or

(c) includes 'before' and 'after' photos or videos of patients (particulars to ASOC [95]).

1. Content or documents evidencing the content appearing on the Instagram account @drryanwells in the period between January 2020 through to 24 January 2022 that:

(a) are the 'examples of posts' referred to at ASOC [95];

(b) contains the caption #plasticsurgery; or

(c) includes 'before' and 'after' photos or videos of patients (particulars to ASOC [95]).

16 It is agreed that categories 19(a), 20(a) and 21(a) should be deleted.

17 The plaintiffs seek to add 'or #plasticsurgeon' to subcategory (b) in each case on the basis that it 'is a natural extension of the pleaded phrase'. The second defendant opposes that change on the basis that no allegation is pleaded in the ASOC that any plaintiff or group member saw a post by the second defendant containing '#plasticsurgeon'.

18 The plaintiff's pleaded examples of the Plastic Surgery Representation social media posts by the second defendant include '#plasticsurgery' but not '#plasticsurgeon'. An example post particularised in respect of the third defendant includes '#plasticsurgeon'.

19 The change proposed by the plaintiffs does not arise from the Court of Appeal judgment. On the other hand, there is no discernible difference in the relevance of posts containing '#plasticsurgery' to those containing '#plasticsurgeon' to the ACL claim as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The defendants did not argue that adding the further phrase to the category would result in any significant additional work or cost. In the circumstances I will allow the change proposed by the plaintiffs.

20 The plaintiffs conceded that subcategories 20(c) and 21(c) should be deleted. However, they argued subcategory 19(c) should remain on the basis of a reference in particulars to paragraph 94 of the ASOC to before and after photos and videos posted by the second defendant on social media.

21 The particular to which the plaintiffs referred reads as follows:

Examples of posts made by Lanzer on social media which conveyed the Plastic Surgery Representation include:

...

• On 25 November 2020 on Instagram and Tik Tok, Lanzer posted a before and after of a mini tuck with 360 liposculpture and the words "#plasticsurgery".

It is not explained in the ASOC how before and after images of surgical procedures posted on social media convey the Plastic Surgery Representation. The reference to before and after images in one of the particularised example posts is not a sufficient basis for requiring the second defendant to discover posts that include before and after photos or videos of patients. Discovery category 19(c) is deleted.

22 I will hear from the parties as to the form of orders that should be made consistent with this ruling.

DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC SURGERY SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 055 927 618)

JACQUELINE DARBYSHIRE AND TONY DARBYSHIRE (ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE DANIEL DARBYSHIRE)

[1] Lombardo v Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (summary dismissal and pleadings) [2024] VSC 608 ('Lombardo v Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd').

[2] Lanzer v Lombardo [2025] VSCA 229 ('Lanzer v Lombardo').

[3] Lombardo v Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 463, 19-20 [53].

[4] The relevant parties are as follows: Lombardo (first plaintiff), Bonnici (second plaintiff), Dr Lanzer (second defendant), Dr Aronov (third defendant), Dr Wells (fifth defendant) and Dr Wong (seventh defendant).

[5] Lombardo v Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (n 1) 29 [102].

[6] Ibid 31 [108] (citations omitted).

[9] Lombardo v Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (discovery ruling) [2025] VSC 230.