Brigg v Reid - [2002] NSWSC 80

CITATION: Brigg v Reid & Anor [2002] NSWSC 80

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20053 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 18 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 February 2002

PARTIES :

DAVID STEWART BRIGGS
(Plaintiff)
v
MICHAEL REID
(First Defendant)
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
D Caspersonn
(Plaintiff)
M Lynch
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
R J O'Halloran & Co
(Plaintiff)
NSW Crown Solicitor's Office
(Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: On application to strike out contextual truth defence

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Blake v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 885
Haertsch v Andrews & Anor [1999] NSWSC 359
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (1984) 1 NSWLR 386
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434
Matheson v Kennedy & Anor (Hunt J, unreported, 3 November 1989)

DECISION: See paragraphs 19 to 21

DLJ: 2

[2002] NSWSC 80

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
D efamation list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

Friday 22 February 2002

20053 of 1999

DAVID STEWART BRIGGS
(P laintiff )

V

MICHAEL REID
(First Defendant)

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
(S econd Defendant )

JUDGMENT (On application to strike out contextual truth defence)

1 The plaintiff sues in respect of, first, a memorandum to staff issued by the defendants on the letterhead of the NSW Health Department. It is in the following terms:

“To all staff,

I wish to advise that, as of today, Mr David Briggs has been removed from his position as Chief Executive Officer of the New England Health Service.

Following approval from the Governor of New South Wales, Mr Briggs has been removed following a recent Department of Health audit review which concluded there had been inadequate and ineffective financial management of the NEHS.

I appreciate that this decision may cause some disruption within the Health Service, but I can assure you that this step was not taken lightly and was made with the best interests of the Health Service and the population it serves in mind.

Ms Christine Kibble, the Associate Director of Financial Management at the Department of Health, will be Acting CEO of the Health Service from today.

I will ensure that the position of CEO is advertised as a priority to minimise the risk of any further disruption.

In the interim, I would like to thank you for your hard work and dedication which continues to provide the highest quality of health care to residents of the New England.”

2 The second matter complained of is a media release dated 3 September 1997 which is in the following terms:

“3 September 1997

NEW CEO TO BE APPOINTED TO NEW ENGLAND HEALTH SERVICE

NSW Health Director General, Michael Reid, today advised that Mr David Briggs had been removed from his position as Chief Executive Officer of the New England Health Service.

Mr Reid said Mr Briggs had been removed following a recent Department of Health audit review which concluded there had been inadequate and ineffective…

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 Brigg v Reid

Details

AGLC: Brigg v Reid [2002] NSWSC 80
Case: [2002] NSWSC 80
Decision Date: 22 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brigg v Reid involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Brigg, and the defendant, Reid, concerning the veracity of statements made by the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendant liable for defamation, alleging that the defendant's statements were false and had caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In response, the defendant raised a defence of contextual truth, arguing that the statements, though defamatory, were substantially true within the context in which they were made.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's contextual truth defence was legally valid and sufficient to warrant a trial. The court had to determine whether this defence could be sustained under the common law principles of defamation and whether it was appropriate to strike out the defence at an early stage of the proceedings. The court's analysis involved examining the nature and scope of the contextual truth defence, and its compatibility with established legal principles.

The court concluded that the contextual truth defence, as articulated by the defendant, was not a legally recognised defence to defamation in Australia. The court held that this defence was not sufficiently grounded in existing legal authority and did not align with the fundamental principles of defamation law, which require a clear distinction between truth and falsehood as a defence. Consequently, the court ruled that the defence was not sustainable and ordered that it be struck out. The court found that the statements in question were defamatory and did not fall within any recognised exception or qualification that would absolve the defendant of liability.

The final orders of the court were that the contextual truth defence raised by the defendant be struck out. The case was to proceed to trial on the remaining issues, focusing on the question of whether the defendant's statements were indeed defamatory and, if so, what damages the plaintiff might be entitled to recover.

Orders