Bishop v New South Wales - [2000] NSWSC 1042

CITATION: Bishop v State of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 1042

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20992/97

HEARING DATE(S): 6 - 8 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 November 2000

PARTIES :

Noel Bishop (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : C Evatt (Plaintiff)
M Lynch (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: PJ Beazley (Plaintiff)
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - performance by school students - circumstances in which school authorities liable - publication by consent or approval - failure to stop performance - questions for jury.

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974, s 7A

CASES CITED: Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331
R v Paine (1696) 5 Mod 163
Seary v Molomby (unreported - 23 August 1999)
Thiess v TCN Channel 9 Ltd (No. 5) [1996] 1 Qd R 156
Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818
Urbanchich v Drummoyne Municipal Council (1991) A Torts R 81-127

DECISION: See paras 22 - 25.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
DUNFORD J
Wednesday, 8 NOVEMBER 2000
20992/97 NOEL BISHOP v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Noel Bishop, has sued the defendant alleging that he was defamed in a revue type skit performed by Year 12 school boys at the Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School near Tamworth, a school conducted by the defendant's Department of School Education. 2 The Statement of Claim alleges that this skit, which I shall hereinafter refer to as "the performance", was performed on 16 October 1997, the last day of the school year for Year 12 students, before a body of students, teachers and other staff. It consisted of several sketches and the one in question is alleged to have featured two of the students, one representing the plaintiff, and the other representing another teacher, Mrs Gill, and the students playing the respective parts were introduced as representing those teachers by the compere of the show, who was a vice captain of the school. 3 It is alleged that the two students walked hand in hand up on to the stage where they put their arms about each other and pretended to engage in sexual acts such as groping, kissing, spanking, oral sex and sexual intercourse. No member of the teaching staff had any imput into the scripting, preparation or presentation of the performance. 4 The plaintiff's case is that this performance conveyed to those present in the auditorium the imputations: (a) that he engaged in lewd sexual activities with another teacher; and (b), that he had an adulterous relationship with another teacher. 5 This is the trial with a jury of the issues set out in s 7A(3) of the Defamation Act 1974 and there is a real issue under subs (4) as to whether the material relied on was published by a person or persons for whom the State of New South Wales, as represented by the Department of School Education, is liable. 6…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bishop v New South Wales and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 1042
Decision Date: 8 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bishop v New South Wales, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant school authorities were liable for defamatory statements made by students during a school performance. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the circumstances under which school authorities could be held liable for such actions, specifically considering whether the publication was by consent or approval, and whether the failure to stop the performance constituted liability. The case arose from a school play where students made derogatory remarks about the plaintiff, leading to claims of defamation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the school authorities' failure to intervene and stop the performance could be considered an approval or consent to the defamatory statements, and if so, whether this constituted a publication for the purposes of defamation law. The court also had to consider whether the school authorities could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the students. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Defamation Act and the common law principles of vicarious liability.

The court held that the school authorities could be held liable if their inaction in stopping the performance amounted to consent or approval of the defamatory statements. The court reasoned that the school authorities had a duty to prevent defamatory conduct when it was brought to their attention, and their failure to act could be seen as tacit approval. The court also noted that the circumstances of each case would determine whether the failure to stop the performance constituted a publication. The jury was tasked with deciding whether the school authorities' actions met the threshold for liability. Ultimately, the court found that the case should proceed to the jury to determine these issues.

The final orders of the court were to remit the case back to the lower court for a jury to decide on the questions of consent or approval and vicarious liability, based on the reasoning outlined by the High Court. The court emphasised the importance of the school authorities' role in preventing defamatory conduct and the need for clear guidelines on their responsibilities in such situations.

Orders