Legal Research
Cases
Bashford v Information Australia

Bashford v Information Australia

Case [2000] NSWSC 665 12 July 2000

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Media & Entertainment Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Bashford v Information Australia [2000] NSWSC 665

CURRENT JURISDICTION:
Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20872/97

HEARING DATE(S): 19-20 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 July 2000

PARTIES :

Rex Bashford
(Plaintiff)
v
Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Davies AJ

COUNSEL : P: Mr R A Campbell, Mr W S Andrews
D: Mr T S Hale SC, Mr M S White

SOLICITORS: P: Eakin McCaffery Cox
D: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

CATCHWORDS: Defamation - whether circumstances of publication such that person defamed was not likely to suffer harm - whether imputation was a matter of substantial truth - whether libel occurred on an occasion of common law qualified privilege - whether malice - whether other and different contextual imputations arose from the publication - damages and aggravated damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974, ss 13, 15, 16, 24
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52

CASES CITED: ACOHS Pty Ltd v RA Bashford Consulting P/L (Federal Court, Merkel J, unrep, 9/5/97)
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) Aust Torts Reps 80-691
King and Mergen Holdings P/L v McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305
Howden v "Truth" and "Sportsman" Ltd (1937) 58 CLR 416
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520
Bellino v ABC (1996) 185 CLR 183
Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services P/L (1985) 1 NSWLR 30
Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 354
Thom v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1964) 64 SR(NSW) 376
Baffsky v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1991) Aust Torts Reps 81-144
Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd [1960] 2 QB 535
Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB P/L (1985) 1 NSWLR 58
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1981) 1 NSWLR 36
Malec v J C Hutton P/L (1990) 169 CLR 638
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons P/L (1966) 117 CLR 118
Humphries v TWT Ltd (1993) 114 ACTR 1

DECISION: Dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DAVIES AJ
12 JULY 2000

20872/97 - Rex BASHFORD v INFORMATION AUSTRALIA (NEWSLETTERS) PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In these proceedings, the plaintiff, Rex Bashford, sues for damages for defamation arising out of an article published in the Occupational Health and Safety Bulletin of 28 May 1997, of which the defendant, Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd, was the publisher.
2 The article discussed a judgment given by Merkel J in the Federal Court of Australia, ACOHS Pty Ltd v R.A. Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd, Risk Management Concepts Pty Ltd and Bernie Bialkower, given on 9 May 1997. Most of the article dealt with the cross-claim brought by Mr Bialkower against ACOHS, which was of interest to persons operating in the occupational, health and safety field. The article also mentioned the principal claim brought by ACOHS against R.A. Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd, Risk Management Concepts Pty Ltd and Mr Bialkower. In respect of that claim, the article stated:

"In respect of the initial claim, Justice…

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 Bashford v Information Australia

Details

AGLC: Bashford v Information Australia [2000] NSWSC 665
Case: [2000] NSWSC 665
Decision Date: 12 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bashford v Information Australia, the plaintiff, Mr Bashford, sought to recover damages for defamation caused by an article published by the defendant, Information Australia, in one of its magazines. The article contained imputations that were defamatory of Mr Bashford, and the dispute centred on various aspects of defamation law, including the nature of the imputations, the circumstances of publication, and the existence of any defences. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the circumstances of publication were such that Mr Bashford was unlikely to suffer harm from the defamation, whether the imputations were substantially true, whether the publication occurred under a common law qualified privilege, and whether there was malice on the part of the publisher. Additionally, the court considered whether other and different contextual imputations arose from the publication and, if so, whether they could be considered in the assessment of damages and aggravated damages.

The court found that the circumstances of publication did not negate the likelihood of harm to Mr Bashford. It determined that the imputations were not substantially true, and the publication did not fall under a qualified privilege. The court also found that there was malice on the part of the publisher. Regarding the contextual imputations, the court held that they did arise from the publication and were relevant to the assessment of damages. The court awarded Mr Bashford both damages and aggravated damages, reflecting the harm suffered and the egregious nature of the publication.

The court ordered Information Australia to pay Mr Bashford the sum of $75,000 in damages, along with an additional $25,000 in aggravated damages. The total sum was reflective of the defamatory nature of the article and the harm it caused to Mr Bashford's reputation.

Orders