Cornwall v Rowan

In the matter of Cornwall v Rowan, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the liability of various parties involved in a defamation case. The plaintiff, Ms Rowan, sought damages from Dr Cornwall, Mrs Roberts, and the State of South Australia for defamatory statements made during television broadcasts and in a report, which she claimed caused injury to her reputation and economic loss. The court had to decide whether exemplary damages were appropriate, the extent of liability of the various defendants, and the appropriate quantum of damages.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to warrant exemplary damages, the extent of liability of the defendants, and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to Ms Rowan. The court also had to consider the role of the State of South Australia in the defamation and whether it could be held vicariously liable for the actions of Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts.

The court held that there was no sufficient evidence of malice to justify exemplary damages. It found that Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts were jointly and severally liable for the defamation, with the full amount of damages to be borne by them. The court determined that the State of South Australia was not vicariously liable for the actions of Dr Cornwall or Mrs Roberts, as these actions were not within the scope of their employment. The court also reduced the general damages for injury to Ms Rowan’s reputation and increased the economic loss component, setting the total damages at $280,425.10.

The court's final orders were that Dr Cornwall and Mrs Roberts were jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages, including interest. The State of South Australia was not liable for the defamation, and its appeal was dismissed. The defamation defendants were ordered to pay the full amount of damages to Ms Rowan.