Legal Research
Cases
Caccavo, Ralph & Anor v Daft & Anor

Caccavo, Ralph & Anor v Daft & Anor

Case [2006] TASSC 36 30 May 2006

Defamation

Justification

Defamation

Type to search within this case.

[2006] TASSC 36

CITATION: Caccavo & Anor v Daft & Anor [2006] TASSC 36

PARTIES:  CACCAVO, Ralph
  RALPH'S TASMANIAN SEAFOOD PTY LTD
  v
  DAFT, Mark
  TAS LIVE ABALONE PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  61/2006
DELIVERED ON:  30 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 May 2006
DECISION OF:  Master S J Holt

CATCHWORDS:

Defamation – Action for defamation – Pleading – Tasmania – Defence of justification.
Polly Peck(Holdings) PLC v Trelford [1986] 1 QB 1000 considered.
Defamation Act 2005 (Tas), s25.
Aust Dig Defamation [119]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiffs:  L W Maher
             Defendants:  M E O'Farrell
Solicitors:
             Plaintiffs:  Page Seager
             Defendants:  Ware & Partners

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 36
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 36/2006
File No 61/2006

RALPH CACCAVO and
RALPH'S TASMANIAN SEAFOOD PTY LTD ACN 072 609 879 v
MARK DAFT and TAS LIVE ABALONE PTY LTD ACN 069 500 714

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER S J HOLT
30 MAY 2006

The defendants in a defamation action have applied for leave to amend their defences. The only aspect of the amendment application which is in controversy is the proposed plea of justification. The publications about which the plaintiffs complain were alleged to have been made on 12 January 2006. Tasmania adopted the Uniform Defamation Law by the enactment of the Defamation Act 2005 ("the Act"), which by virtue of statutory rule No 139 of 2005 came into effect on 1 January 2006.

Relevantly, as to the defence of justification, the Act includes the following:

"s4 Interpretation
'substantially true' means true in substance or not materially different from the truth;

s6 Tort of defamation
(2)This Act does not affect the operation of the general law in relation to the tort of defamation except to the extent that this Act provides otherwise (whether expressly or by necessary implication).

s24Scope of defences under general law and other law not limited
(1)A defence under this Division is additional to any other defence or exclusion of liability available to the defendant apart from this Act (including under the general law) and does not of itself vitiate, limit or abrogate any other defence or exclusion of liability.

s25Defence of justification
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

s26Defence of contextual truth
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that –
(a)the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations ('contextual imputations') that are substantially true; and
(b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations."

Before turning to the proposed plea in detail there are some matters which have a bearing on pleading justification, which need to be mentioned. They are as follows:

(i)It has become modern practice…

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 Caccavo, Ralph & Anor v Daft & Anor

Details

AGLC: Caccavo, Ralph v Daft [2006] TASSC 36
Case: [2006] TASSC 36
Decision Date: 30 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Caccavo, Ralph & Anor v Daft & Anor, the plaintiffs sought damages for defamation from the defendants. The dispute arose from a series of statements made by the defendants, which the plaintiffs claimed were defamatory. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where the plaintiffs argued that the defendants' statements were false and defamatory, causing harm to their reputation. The defendants, however, maintained that the statements were true and therefore justified, constituting a valid defence under the law of defamation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendants' statements were defamatory and, if so, whether the defence of justification was available and successful. The court had to determine whether the statements made by the defendants were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, and if so, whether the defendants had proven that the statements were true and therefore justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess the scope and limits of the defence of justification, including the burden of proof and the standard of evidence required for the defendants to successfully establish their defence.

The court analysed the nature of the statements made by the defendants and concluded that they were indeed capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. However, in considering the defence of justification, the court found that the defendants had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the truth of the statements. The court held that the defendants had not met the burden of proof required to establish the defence of justification, as they had not demonstrated that the statements were true beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' statements were defamatory and that the defence of justification was not successfully established. As a result, the plaintiffs were awarded damages for the defamation caused by the defendants' statements.

Orders