Brown v Marron

In Brown v Marron, the plaintiff sought to join a golf club and the defendant, a member of the club, wrote a letter opposing the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia, alleging defamation. The defendant argued that the letter was privileged under the doctrine of qualified privilege. The court was required to determine whether the letter constituted a defamatory statement, and if so, whether the defendant's reliance on qualified privilege was valid.

The court found that the contents of the letter were indeed defamatory, as they implied that the plaintiff was untrustworthy and unsuitable for membership. The defence of justification was not available to the defendant, as the allegations were not proven to be true. The court then considered whether the letter was protected by qualified privilege. It was established that the club rules required new membership applications to be posted on the noticeboard, and members were permitted to object. The court held that the letter of objection was a privileged occasion, as it was communicated on an occasion that carried with it a duty to the recipients of the communication. However, the court also considered whether there was a requisite reciprocity of duty and interest, which was necessary for the privilege to apply. The court found that there was a mutual interest in protecting the integrity of the club, and the privilege was therefore applicable.

The court further considered whether the inclusion of irrelevant and exaggerated material in the letter constituted an excess of privilege. The court held that while the presence of such material did not necessarily negate the privilege, it could be a factor in determining whether there was malice. The court found that there was no evidence of malice on the part of the defendant, and the privilege was not lost on that ground. The court concluded that the defendant's letter was protected by qualified privilege, and the plaintiff's claim for defamation was dismissed.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the action. The court emphasised that the presence of malice and the extent of any excess of privilege would be matters to be determined on the facts of each case.