Barrow v Bolt

Barrow brought a defamation claim against Bolt in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging that defamatory statements were made about him by Bolt. The case proceeded to a full hearing, but the trial judge dismissed Barrow’s claim. Barrow applied for leave to appeal the trial judge's decision, contending that the judge erred in concluding that he had not established the necessary malice and that the judge incorrectly interpreted the concept of ‘harm’ in the context of the triviality defence.

The key legal issues in this case revolved around the application of qualified privilege in defamation law, the requirement to prove malice, and the interpretation of the term ‘harm’ in the context of the triviality defence. The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied these principles in dismissing the defamation claim. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the trial judge erred in concluding that Barrow failed to prove malice and whether the judge's interpretation of ‘harm’ in the triviality defence was correct.

The court found that the trial judge correctly applied the law in relation to the elements of malice and the triviality defence. The court held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that Barrow had not established malice as required. Additionally, the court found that the judge correctly interpreted the term ‘harm’ in the context of the triviality defence, noting that ‘harm’ does not include distress and hurt feelings. The court referred to the decision in Jones v Sutton to support its interpretation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in this instance.