District Court
New South Wales
Case Title: Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No. 6) Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWDC 40 Hearing Date(s): 3, 4, 5 March 2014; submissions 11 March 2014 Decision Date: 17 April 2014 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,000.
(2) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.
(3) Exhibits retained for 28 days.Catchwords: TORT - defamation - letter to NSW Premier conveying four imputations of bullying conduct - plaintiff awarded $65,000 for publications to a committee and two media organisations - damages for publication to committee and justification findings (for two of the four imputations only) set aside on appeal - proceedings remitted for partial rehearing - fresh evidence by plaintiff as to circumstances of publication - defendant succeeds in proving substantial truth defence to two remaining imputations at retrial
DAMAGES - limited publication - mitigating effect of partial justification plea - whether derisory damages should be awarded - impact of apology made in court - whether aggravated damages available - impact of s 25 defence and abandoned contextual truth defence - failure to apologise in response to request in concerns notice - damages of $6,000 awarded - claim for aggravated damages refusedLegislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25, 26, 35 and 36 Cases Cited: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1962] 2 All ER 737
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430
Bailey v Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 700
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 335
Beaven v Fink [2009] NSWDC 218
Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1992 - 3) 178 CLR 44
Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 33
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) 278 ALR 232
Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 80
Dering v Uris [1964] 2 QB 669
Ell v Milne (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 175
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630
Fink v Beaven [2010] NSWCA 92
Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 231
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad (2012) 292 ALR 192
Hallam v Ross (No 2) [2012] QSC 407
Herald v Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1
Holt v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 770
Holt v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 90
Howden v Truth & Sportsman Limited (1937) 58 CLR 416
Hyhonie Holdings Pty Ltd v Leroy [2004] NSWCA 72
Jameel v Dow-Jones Inc [2005] QB 946
Jones v Sutton (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 203
Kelly v Sherlock (1866) LR 1 QB 686
Li v Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2007] VSC 109
Lloyd-Jones v Allen [2012] NSWCA 230
Lloyd-Jones v Allen (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 315
Lloyd-Jones v Allen [2013] HCATrans…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Allen v Lloyd-Jones (No 6) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2014] NSWDC 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved a defamation case where the plaintiff, Allen, had sought damages from Lloyd-Jones for a letter sent to the NSW Premier, which contained four imputations of bullying conduct. The primary judge awarded Allen $65,000 for the publications to a committee and two media organisations, and found two of the four imputations to be substantially true. The appellate court set aside the findings of defamation and justification for two of the imputations, and remitted the matter for a partial rehearing. At the retrial, fresh evidence was presented by Allen regarding the circumstances of the publication. Lloyd-Jones successfully proved the substantial truth defence for the two remaining imputations.
In considering the limited publication of the defamatory material and the mitigating effect of the partial justification plea, the court assessed the appropriateness of awarding derisory damages. The court also considered the impact of the apology made by Lloyd-Jones in court, the abandoned contextual truth defence, and the failure to apologise in response to the concerns notice. The court ultimately awarded Allen $6,000 in damages and refused the claim for aggravated damages. The court found that the apology, the partial justification plea, and the limited publication of the defamatory material all contributed to the reduced amount of damages awarded.
The final orders of the court were to award Allen $6,000 in damages, to grant liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs, and to retain the exhibits for 28 days. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the various factors that can impact the assessment of damages in defamation cases, including the scope of publication, the partial justification plea, and the effect of an apology. The case also underscores the need for a careful evaluation of the evidence and the application of relevant legal principles in determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded.
In considering the limited publication of the defamatory material and the mitigating effect of the partial justification plea, the court assessed the appropriateness of awarding derisory damages. The court also considered the impact of the apology made by Lloyd-Jones in court, the abandoned contextual truth defence, and the failure to apologise in response to the concerns notice. The court ultimately awarded Allen $6,000 in damages and refused the claim for aggravated damages. The court found that the apology, the partial justification plea, and the limited publication of the defamatory material all contributed to the reduced amount of damages awarded.
The final orders of the court were to award Allen $6,000 in damages, to grant liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs, and to retain the exhibits for 28 days. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the various factors that can impact the assessment of damages in defamation cases, including the scope of publication, the partial justification plea, and the effect of an apology. The case also underscores the need for a careful evaluation of the evidence and the application of relevant legal principles in determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,000.
(2) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.
(3) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.