Feldman v Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc; Feldman v Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Australia Ltd; Feldman v Spinak

In the Federal Court of Australia, the plaintiff, Feldman, brought a defamation claim against three defendants, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc, the Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Australia Ltd, and Spinak. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants published defamatory statements about him, which impugned his fitness to be a religious leader. The defendants raised a defence of justification, asserting that the statements were true and had been published for the public benefit. The plaintiff applied to strike out certain particulars in the defence, arguing that they were irrelevant to the question of his fitness to be a religious leader.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the particulars in the defence, which related to the plaintiff's private conduct, were relevant to determining his fitness to be a religious leader. The court considered whether the private conduct could inform the question of his suitability for the role, and if so, whether it was necessary for the defendants to prove these particulars to establish the defence of justification. The court also examined the relevance of the private conduct to the plaintiff's position within the religious community and the expectations of the community regarding the conduct of its religious leaders.

The court found that the private conduct alleged in the particulars was relevant to the question of the plaintiff's fitness to be a religious leader. The court held that the private conduct could inform the community's assessment of his suitability for the role and that it was necessary for the defendants to prove these particulars to establish the defence of justification. The court also found that the private conduct was relevant to the plaintiff's position within the religious community and the expectations of the community regarding the conduct of its religious leaders. The court rejected the plaintiff's application to strike out the particulars in the defence.

The court ordered that the particulars in the defence relating to the plaintiff's private conduct were to be left standing. The court held that the defendants were required to prove these particulars to establish the defence of justification. The court also found that the private conduct was relevant to the plaintiff's position within the religious community and the expectations of the community regarding the conduct of its religious leaders. The court's decision clarified the scope of the defence of justification in defamation cases involving religious leaders and the relevance of private conduct to the question of their fitness for the role.