Legal Research
Cases
Attrill v Christie

Attrill v Christie

Case [2007] NSWSC 1386 19 December 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 19/11/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Award the sum of $110,000; Judgment will be entered in the sum specified with interest calculated at 2 per cent; The parties may bring in a minute of judgment incorporating the order for costs. In the event that there is any issue concerning a special order for costs, the matter may be re-listed on three days notice

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Defamation Act 2005 - imputations of criminality

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005

CASES CITED: Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1992-1993) 178 CLR 44
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chakravarti v Advertisers Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Dingle v Associated Newspapers [1964] AC 317
Hodge v TCN Channel Nine [2006] NSWSC 933
McGaw v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1147
NSW Aboriginal Land Council v Perkins (1998) 45 NSWLR 340
Obeid v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 1059
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Limited (2003) 216 CLR 327
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR

PARTIES: Gerald Hart Attrill (Plaintiff)
Ronald George Christie (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20158/06

COUNSEL: S M Littlemore QC / S Chrysanthou (Plaintiff)
K P Smark SC / D Hand (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Larbalestier & Co (Plaintiff)
R Christie (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Wednesday 19 December 2007

20158/06 Gerald Hart Attrill v Ronald George Christie
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: By statement of claim filed on 5 May 2006 the plaintiff claims damages for defamation arising out of the publication in or about February 2006 of certain words said by the defendant to a journalist employed by the licensee of TCN Channel Nine in the course of a video taped interview. The statements were made in the knowledge that they would be re-published as part of an item broadcast on the Nine Network in the program “A Current Affair” (the program). They were broadcast throughout Australia on 14 February 2006. The plaintiff sues the defendant for the publication of the words to the journalist and for their re-publication in the course of the broadcast of the program.

2 The words upon which the claim is brought and which it is acknowledged were published of and concerning the plaintiff are:

(a) He’s nothing more than a con man.

(b) I’ve had so many phone calls and I’ve been in contact with so many families that have been absolutely devastated by losing their children to this man’s particular occult.

(c) The day he’s behind bars will be a day when not only me but thousands of people and families around this country would be very happy and pleased to see.

3 In accordance with the Rules…

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 Attrill v Christie

Details

AGLC: Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1386
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attrill v Christie was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Christie, had made defamatory statements about the plaintiff, Attrill, suggesting that he had engaged in criminal activities. The primary dispute was whether Christie’s statements were defamatory and if so, the appropriate measure of damages under the Defamation Act 2005.

The court had to determine several legal issues, including the meaning and effect of the defamatory statements made by Christie. It also needed to assess whether the imputations of criminality were defamatory in nature and if they had caused harm to Attrill’s reputation. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles of quantification of damages under the Defamation Act 2005 and whether the damages awarded were fair and just.

In its reasoning, the court held that Christie’s statements were indeed defamatory as they implied that Attrill was involved in criminal activities. The court found that these imputations had caused significant harm to Attrill’s reputation, leading to distress and embarrassment. The court considered the principles set out in the Defamation Act 2005 and determined that the damages awarded should reflect the seriousness of the defamation and the harm suffered. The court awarded Attrill a total of $75,000 in damages, considering the nature of the defamation, the harm caused, and the need for deterrence.

Orders