Cunliffe v Woods

In the case of Cunliffe v Woods, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamation caused by the defendant's letter to the plaintiff's solicitor. The letter referenced an affidavit provided by the plaintiff in judicial proceedings and discussed the plaintiff's conduct in relation to those proceedings. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether the letter conveyed the defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff, whether other defamatory imputations were permissible variants of the pleaded imputations, and whether the defences of absolute or qualified privilege, malice, and triviality applied.

The court held that the letter conveyed the pleaded imputations and that other defamatory imputations were permissible variants. In relation to the defences, the court found that the letter was published on an occasion properly incidental to judicial proceedings and necessary for them, and thus absolute privilege applied. The court found that there was no malice and that the defence of triviality did not apply.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety. The court did not make any orders for costs.