Adamson v Ede - [2007] NSWSC 829

CITATION: Adamson v Ede [2007] NSWSC 829

HEARING DATE(S): 27/02/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
1 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: I enter a verdict for the plaintiff and give judgment in the sum of $60,000. The defendant must pay the plaintiff’s costs.

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - qualified privilege - motive to injure plaintiff - proof of malice - no defence

CASES CITED: Bashford v Information Australia [2004] 218 CLR 366
Dickson v Earl of Wilton 175 ER 790
Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102
Jackson & 9 Ors v TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 1229
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR
Toogood v Spyring 149 ER 1044

PARTIES: Christopher Michael Adamson
Kenneth John Ede

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20311/04

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr K. Smark

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr Mark Morris

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

1 AUGUST 2007
20311/04 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ADAMSON v

KENNETH JOHN EDE

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1 The plaintiff was admitted as a solicitor in Queensland in November 1983, where he practised as a solicitor for about sixteen years, for which purpose he obtained practising certificates as required by the law of that State. On 5 July 1995 he was admitted as a legal practitioner in New South Wales and practised as such from that date to 30 June 2003, again having the requisite practising certificates permitting him to do so. For about a year the plaintiff ceased practising as a solicitor but recommenced on 5 July 2004 and continues to practise, holding a current practising certificate. The plaintiff and the defendant have known each other for some years but there was a falling out between them.

2 The defendant became aware some considerable time before the date of the defamatory conduct that the plaintiff was involved in litigation with one Mrs Elizabeth Fitzpatrick. It appears that the dispute between the plaintiff and Mrs Fitzpatrick concerned legal fees claimed by the plaintiff to be payable by Mrs Fitzpatrick. Although the defendant was aware that Mrs Fitzpatrick had been a neighbour of the plaintiff’s, he had never met her and, for all practical purposes, she was a complete stranger to him. A day or so before 20 July 2004, the defendant became aware that the litigation was still on foot and of the identity of Mrs Fitzpatrick’s solicitors. He immediately telephoned Mr Beazley and told him (inter alia) the following –

1. Christopher Michael Adamson was born Christopher Michael Adamski in Orange on 2 June 1953;

2. In 1977 he was convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales, not being a traffic offence and the criminal record number is 373404;

3. He changed his name from Christopher Michael Adamski to Christopher Michael Adamson and applied for admission as a solicitor in either Queensland or New South Wales; and

4. He did not disclose the fact that he had been convicted of any criminal offence in his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adamson v Ede

Details

AGLC: Adamson v Ede [2007] NSWSC 829
Case: [2007] NSWSC 829
Decision Date: 1 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adamson v Ede, the defendant, Ede, published a statement to a third party that the plaintiff, Adamson, had been discharged from his employment due to misconduct. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for defamation, asserting that the statement was false and had caused him damage to his reputation. The defendant argued that the publication was protected by qualified privilege, as it was made in good faith and for the protection of the interests of the defendant's business. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's publication was protected by qualified privilege, and if so, whether the plaintiff had proven that the defendant had a motive to injure him or that the defendant acted with malice. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's statement was made in good faith and for the protection of the defendant's interests, or if the defendant had a ulterior motive to harm the plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving that the defendant acted with malice.

The court found that the defendant's statement was not protected by qualified privilege as the defendant had a ulterior motive to injure the plaintiff, which was to damage the plaintiff's reputation and prevent him from obtaining employment elsewhere. The court held that the plaintiff had successfully discharged the onus of proving that the defendant acted with malice. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the defamation. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $10,000 in damages, as well as costs of the action.

Orders