TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  1589/1996
DELIVERED ON:  12 April 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  20 - 23, 28- 30 November 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Defamation - Statements amounting to defamation - Imputation - As to capacity, fitness, respectability and the like.

Defamation Act 1957 (Tas), s5.
The Capital and Counties Bank, Limited v George Henty & Sons (1882) 7 AC 741 ; Downie & Anor v Tasmanian Eye Clinics Pty Ltd & Anor [1999] TASSC 42; Neville v The Fine Art and General Insurance Company, Limited [1897] AC 68; Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 All ER 1094; FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v RAIA Insurance Brokers Ltd (1992) 108 ALR 479; Nixon v Slater & Gordon (2000) Aust Torts R 81-565; Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; Livingstone-Thomas v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1969) 90 WN(NSW) 223; Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission & Anor (1974) 22 FLR 181; Pervan v The North Queensland Newspaper Company Ltd & Anor (1992 - 1993) 178 CLR 309; Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1985] 1 NSWLR 30; Bateman v Shepherd & Ord (1997) Aust Tort Reports 81-417, followed.
Aust Dig Defamation [11]

Defamation - Privilege - Qualified privilege - On matters of public interest - What constitutes privileged occasion, communication or conduct.

Defamation Act 1957 (Tas), s16.
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1996) 185 CLR 183 ; Calwell v IPEC Australia Ltd (1975) 135 CLR 321; Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135; Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185; Mowlds v Fergusson (1939) 40 SR(NSW) 311, followed.
Aust Dig Defamation [68]

Defamation - Statements amounting to defamation - Reference to plaintiff - Defamation of a class of persons.
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116; McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor (1989) 16 NSWLR 485, followed.
Aust Dig Defamation [21]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  R M Grueber
             Defendant:  J E Green
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Jennings Elliott
             Defendant:  J E Green

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 42
Number of Paragraphs: 108

Serial No 42/2001
File No 1589/1996

KENNETH JOHN BACON, CHRISTOPHER WILKES, MICHAEL JOHN PEARSON, JOHN MALLETT v BARRY HANSCH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

12 April 2001

The plaintiffs sue the defendant for damages for defamation and the defendant counterclaims damages for defamation from the first named plaintiff. At the time of the events which gave rise to these proceedings, all of the parties were members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia ("the Union") and employed by the Tasmanian branch of the Union ("the Branch"), or otherwise involved in the administration of the Branch.

The first plaintiff, Kenneth John Bacon, was employed as an industrial officer of the Branch on 4 January 1982.…

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 Bacon v Hansch

Details

AGLC: Bacon v Hansch [2001] TASSC 42
Case: [2001] TASSC 42
Decision Date: 12 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Kenneth John Bacon, Christopher Wilkes, Michael John Pearson, and John Mallett, members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, sued the defendant, Barry Hansch, for defamation. The defendant counterclaimed for defamation from the first plaintiff. The dispute arose out of events connected to the administration of the Tasmanian Branch of the Transport Workers Union. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation on the basis of publications made by the defendant to members of the Branch. The defendant counterclaimed against the first plaintiff for defamation on the basis of a circular published by the first plaintiff. The trial judge, Evans J, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The judge found that the defendant's publications defamed the plaintiffs, but that the defendant had established defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege in relation to the defamatory imputations. The defendant's counterclaim against the first plaintiff was dismissed on the basis that the defamatory imputations alleged by the defendant had not been established.

Orders