Erglis v Buckley

In Erglis v Buckley, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defamatory statements made against her by nurses employed at the hospital where she worked. The dispute primarily centred on the publication of a defamatory letter within the hospital ward and its subsequent reading in parliament. The court was tasked with determining the applicability of various defences to defamation, including qualified privilege and absolute privilege, as well as the issue of costs and issue estoppel. The jury found that one of the defendants acted in bad faith, leading to the failure of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to that defendant. The court held that the absolute protection conferred on a member of parliament did not extend to defamatory statements made by an informer and subsequently repeated by the member in parliament. The court found that the defendants were not entitled to the absolute protection of parliamentary privilege once the letter had been submitted to parliament. The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages for the defamatory publication within the ward, with interest and costs. The court also determined that the defendants were not estopped from contending that the claim was not maintainable, as the issues raised by the defendants had not been determined against them in the Court of Appeal.