Benhayon v Rockett - [2016] NSWSC 1210

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Benhayon v Rockett [2016] NSWSC 1210
Hearing dates: 6 May 2016
Decision date: 30 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Plaintiff’s application (to have contextual truth defence struck out) dismissed

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – defences – application to have defence of contextual truth struck out – whether contextual imputations capable of being conveyed – same caution to be exercised as when ruling on capacity in respect of a plaintiff’s imputation
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 26
Cases Cited: Corby v Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 227
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 186; [2005] HCA 52
Greek Herald Pty Ltd v Nikolopoulos (2002) 54 NSWLR 165; [2002] NSWCA 41
Smith v ADVFN Plc [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Singleton v Ffrench (1986) 5 NSWLR 425
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Serge Isaac Benhayon (plaintiff)
Esther Mary Rockett (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
KP Smark SC (plaintiff)
M Richardson (defendant)
Solicitors:
Universal Law Cameron Bell & Associates (plaintiff)
Goldsmiths Lawyers (defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/329298

Judgment

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation arising out of the publication of a weblog. The blog concerns the practices of “Universal Medicine”, which is depicted by the author as a religious cult. The plaintiff, Mr Serge Benhayon, is identified as the leader of the alleged cult. The defendant is the author of the blog, Ms Esther Rockett. Ms Rockett openly describes Mr Benhayon as a sexual predator, saying “I’ve seen him in action, as have plenty of others”. Amongst her complaints about him is the accusation that, in 2005, he subjected her to “a sleazy ovarian reading” under the guise of “Esoteric healing”. The content of the blog suggests the existence of an ongoing, robust exchange between Ms Rockett and people she describes as cult members or Mr Benhayon’s “sexual abuse apologists”.
In addition to the main blog, Mr Benhayon sues on two related comments on the blog and a tweet posted on Twitter. The current particulars allege publication to nine people, mostly residents of Goonellabah (a small town in Northern New South Wales) and Queensland.
The imputations specified by the plaintiff are principally imputations of indecent acts and predatory conduct. Ms Rockett has pleaded defences of truth to some but not all of those imputations. She has also pleaded the defence of contextual truth under s 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW). [1] The proposed contextual imputations are considerably broader than those complained of by the plaintiff, expanding the scope of the truth defence into areas concerning Mr Benhayon’s honesty and mental state and the validity of the healing services promoted by Universal Medicine. Mr Benhayon seeks to have the contextual truth defence struck out. This judgment determines that application.
1. Defence filed 29 February 2016, para 14.
Following discussions between the parties, the argument proceeded by reference to a schedule of proposed amended contextual imputations on the understanding that the onus remains on the plaintiff…

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 Benhayon v Rockett

Details

AGLC: Benhayon v Rockett [2016] NSWSC 1210
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1210
Decision Date: 30 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, Mr Benhayon, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Mr Rockett, over a series of statements made on social media. Mr Benhayon alleged that Mr Rockett made defamatory statements about him, which had caused him reputational harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the defence of contextual truth could be applied in this case. Mr Rockett argued that the statements made were true in a contextual sense, and therefore should not be considered defamatory. The court had to determine if the statements in question could reasonably be understood in a way that would make them true, and if so, whether this defence could be applied.

The court held that the defence of contextual truth could apply if the statements were capable of being understood in a way that made them true. The court noted that the same caution must be exercised in determining whether the defendant’s statements could convey the alleged defamatory meaning as is exercised when assessing whether the plaintiff’s imputations have the capacity to defame. The court found that the statements were capable of being understood in a truthful context, and therefore, the defence of contextual truth was available to the defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to have the defence of contextual truth struck out.

The court ordered that the defamation claim proceed to trial, with the availability of the defence of contextual truth to be considered by the jury.

Orders