Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales
Case
•
[2020] NSWDC 641
•23 October 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales [2020] NSWDC 641
[2020] NSWDC 641
23 October 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales was before the court, where the plaintiff, Clarke, sought to sue the defendant, the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales, for defamation. Clarke alleged that the Council had published statements that harmed his reputation and caused him hurt to his feelings. The Council had made these statements in relation to a disciplinary process against Clarke. The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Council's publication of the information amounted to defamation, and if so, whether the Council could rely on the statutory defence of providing the information in good faith.
The court found that the Council's publication of the information did not amount to defamation. The court held that the statements made by the Council were not capable of being defamatory as they were not defamatory in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The court also held that even if the statements were defamatory, the Council could rely on the statutory defence of providing information in good faith. The court found that the Council had acted in good faith and had not acted maliciously in publishing the information. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis. The court also indicated that it would hear the parties on an alternate costs order or as to the making of a gross sum costs order, if an application was made for such a costs order within 7 days, by notifying the other party and the court's Associate.
The court found that the Council's publication of the information did not amount to defamation. The court held that the statements made by the Council were not capable of being defamatory as they were not defamatory in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The court also held that even if the statements were defamatory, the Council could rely on the statutory defence of providing information in good faith. The court found that the Council had acted in good faith and had not acted maliciously in publishing the information. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis. The court also indicated that it would hear the parties on an alternate costs order or as to the making of a gross sum costs order, if an application was made for such a costs order within 7 days, by notifying the other party and the court's Associate.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Defamation
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Statutory Interpretation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Clarke v Health Care Complaints Commission [2024] FCA 753
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council New South Wales
[2021] NSWCA 86
Clarke (Naicker) v Health Care Complaints Commission
[2024] NSWSC 153
Clarke v Health Care Complaints Commission
[2024] FCA 753
Cases Cited
21
Statutory Material Cited
3
Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd
[2005] HCA 46
Bankstown City Council v Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd
[2005] HCA 46