Flegg v Hallett

The plaintiff, a government Minister, sued the defendant, his former media adviser, for defamation, claiming the defendant's statements during a media conference and a radio interview on 13 November 2012 defamed him. The defendant's statements included that the plaintiff had lost the defendant's trust, tabled an inaccurate lobbyists' register, and had opened himself to a charge of misleading a Parliamentary Committee. The court had to determine if these statements were capable of conveying, and did convey, to an ordinary reasonable audience member that the plaintiff committed serious offences, was aware that the lobbyists' register was inaccurate, refused to correct the Committee's record, was lobbied by his son in breach of his son's employment contract, should be dismissed as a Minister, and that the lobbyists' register was grossly inaccurate and had been doctored. Additionally, the court had to decide if the defendant's statements were defamatory, whether the defendant's publications were made reasonably, whether the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing the imputations were true, and whether the defendant was actuated by malice in making the publications.

The court found that the defendant's statements were defamatory. They conveyed that the plaintiff had committed a serious offence of misleading a Parliamentary Committee; was aware that the lobbyists' register was inaccurate when tabled; refused to correct the Committee’s record; was lobbied by his son in breach of his son's employment contract; should be dismissed as a Minister; and, that the lobbyists' register was grossly inaccurate, untrue, incorrect, and had been doctored. The court determined that the defendant's publications were not made reasonably. The defendant had not made proper enquiries as to the accuracy of the statements, and his publications were actuated by malice, as evidenced by his conduct before and during the trial. The defendant's conduct was lacking in bona fides and was improper or unjustifiable.

The court assessed general damages at $275,000 for the three publications taken together. The defendant's malice was known to the plaintiff and aggravated the harm sustained. The court also assessed special damages at $500,000, taking into account the uncertainties of political life and allowing for contingencies. The court concluded that the plaintiff's resignation was caused by the defamatory publications.

ORDERS:
1. General damages are assessed at $275,000.
2. Special damages are assessed at $500,000.