Brien v Mrad

Case [2019] NSWDC 764

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Brien v Mrad [2019] NSWDC 764
Hearing dates: 9, 10 and 16 September 2019
Date of orders: 19 December 2019
Decision date: 19 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.
(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords: TORT – defamation – slander – whether the words of the matter complained of were spoken by the defendant in the course of the annual general meeting of the North Shore Karting Club – defendant denies publication – whether words published of and concerning the plaintiff – whether the words established to be spoken materially alter or qualify the sense of those set out in the particulars of claim – material difference between words pleaded and words proved – judgment for the defendant
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), ss 34, 35 and 36
Cases Cited: Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Armstrong v McIntosh (No 2) [2019] WASC 379
Beattie v Ball (1999) 3 VR 1
Bowden v KSMC Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Hubba Bubba Childcare on Haig & Chapman [2019] NSWDC 98
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519
Coles Supermarkets Australia Ltd v Clarke [2013] NSWCA 272
Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon [2009] NSWDC 21
Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon (2011) 234 CLR 298
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 693
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Feo v Pioneer Concrete (Vic) Pty Ltd [1999] VSCA 180
Gayle v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2); Gayle v The Age Company Pty Ltd (No 2); Gayle v The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1838
Hanson‑Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Hitchcock (2007) 70 NSWLR 484
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234
McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2012] NSWCA 368
Poricanin v Australian Consolidated Industries Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 419
Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir [1975] HCA 27; 132 CLR 362
Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott (1999) 94 FCR 296
Robinson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2004] QCA 319
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB)
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461
Umeyor v Ibe [2016] EWHC 862 (QB)
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Wilson v Basson [2019] NSWSC 1449
Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521
Texts Cited: Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th ed., Sweet & Maxwell)
Cross on Evidence (11th ed., LexisNexis)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Martin Brien
Defendant: Hussein Mrad (aka Sam Mrad)
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff:…

Continue reading Brien v Mrad

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brien v Mrad [2019] NSWDC 764
Case
[2019] NSWDC 764
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Brien, the plaintiff, and Mrad, the defendant. The dispute centred around a claim of defamation, specifically slander, arising from comments allegedly made by the defendant during an annual general meeting of the North Shore Karting Club. The proceedings took place in a relevant Australian court. The plaintiff, Brien, alleged that the defendant, Mrad, made defamatory statements about him during the meeting. Mrad denied publishing any such words and contested the allegations. The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether the words complained of were indeed spoken by the defendant during the meeting, whether they were published, and if they related to and concerned the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the words, if established to have been spoken, materially altered or qualified the sense of those set out in the particulars of claim.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and testimonies presented. It found that there was a material difference between the words alleged in the plaintiff's claim and the words proven to have been spoken by the defendant. This discrepancy was significant enough to alter the meaning or impact of the alleged defamatory words. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not met the necessary burden of proof to establish defamation. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The judgment was clear and definitive, leading to the plaintiff's claim being rejected entirely.

Following the judgment, the court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant. Additionally, the court reserved costs, granting both parties the liberty to apply for them. Finally, the exhibits were retained until further order, ensuring that the evidence would be available for any potential appeals or further legal proceedings. This comprehensive decision highlighted the stringent requirements for proving defamation and underscored the importance of precise and accurate allegations in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.

(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.