Craven v Hidding - [2004] TASSC 147

[2004] TASSC 147

CITATION: Craven v Hidding [2004] TASSC 147

PARTIES:  CRAVEN, Gordon James
  v
  HIDDING, Hon M T (Rene)

THE EXAMINER NEWSPAPER PTY LTD
ALCOCK, Melanie

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  435/2003
DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  7 December 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Defamation – Publication – Generally – Identification – Plaintiff not named – Self-identification – Before publication.

Scelfo v Rutgers University 282 A 2d 445 (1971), considered.
Aust Dig Defamation [31]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  In Person
             Defendants:  G L Jones
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  In Person
             Defendants:  Douglas & Collins

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 147
Number of Paragraphs: 26

Serial No 147/2004
File No 435/2003

GORDON JAMES CRAVEN v Hon M T (Rene)HIDDING,
THE EXAMINER NEWSPAPER PTY LTD, MELANIE ALCOCK

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J
(Edited Version of Reasons Delivered Orally) 7 December 2004

This is an appeal by a plaintiff from an order of the Master made on 13 October 2004 by which the defendants were granted leave to amend their defences. The order permitted a number of amendments to be made to each defence. The plaintiff concedes that most of those amendments were rightly allowed. However he contends that the learned Master should not have permitted the amendment of par10 of the defence of the first defendant, nor permitted the amendment of par10 of the defence of the second and third defendants.

In this action the plaintiff is claiming damages for defamation. His case is that he was responsible for a website. In fact the first two paragraphs of his statement of claim read as follows:

"1 At all material times the plaintiff was and is the owner, publisher and designer of an Internet website called Discover Tasmania (hereinafter referred to as the website) which is published at the Internet address of
1.1At all material times the plaintiff has created the content on the website and has been solely responsibility [sic] for all the content that is published on the website."

The plaintiff contends that defamatory comments concerning his website were published by each of the defendants. He contends that, although he was not named by any of the defendants, the published material was defamatory of him.

One of the defences that each of the defendants is now raising is a defence of self-identification. The defendants rely on an American case, Scelfo v Rutgers University 282 A 2d 445 (1971). That case concerns a publication in a undergraduate newspaper of photographs of two mounted policemen. The photographs were accompanied by a headline that included the words "Cops, Rightists: Racist Pig Bastards". The two officers were unidentifiable in the published photos but they showed the publication to other people, identified themselves as the photographed officers, and sued for defamation. One of the defendants obtained an order for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs were not identified in the publication and thus were not defamed by the publication of the published material.

The…

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 Craven v Hidding

Details

AGLC: Craven v Hidding [2004] TASSC 147
Case: [2004] TASSC 147
Decision Date: 7 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craven v Hidding involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, who was not directly named in the allegedly defamatory publication. The defendant, Hidding, published an article on his website containing statements that the plaintiff believed were defamatory. Although the plaintiff's name was not explicitly mentioned, the plaintiff contended that the statements were directed at them and could be reasonably identified as such. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia to determine the validity of the defamation claim under these circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could successfully claim defamation when the publication did not explicitly name them but was still reasonably identifiable as referring to them. The court needed to consider the principles of defamation law, specifically focusing on the identification of the plaintiff in the context of the publication and whether self-identification by the plaintiff post-publication could suffice. Additionally, the court examined the nature and extent of the defamatory imputations contained in the publication and their potential impact on the plaintiff's reputation.

The court held that for a defamation claim to be valid, the plaintiff must be identifiable in the publication either by name or by other means that a reasonable person would understand as referring to them. In this case, while the plaintiff's name was not directly stated, the court found that the statements made in the article were reasonably identifiable as referring to the plaintiff. The court noted that the plaintiff's self-identification after the publication, supported by the context and content of the article, was sufficient to establish the necessary link for a defamation claim. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the publication was defamatory and that the plaintiff was reasonably identifiable as the subject of the defamatory statements.

The court ordered the defendant to publish an apology and a correction on his website, as well as to pay damages to the plaintiff for the defamation suffered. The specific amount of damages was to be determined in further proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of the identifiability of the plaintiff in defamation cases, even when the plaintiff's name is not explicitly mentioned in the publication.

Orders