Haddon v Steele

The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the appellant, Haddon, against the respondent, Steele. The primary judge had found that the respondent had established the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the defamatory statements made, and crucially, had made no finding of malice on the part of the respondent. The appellant sought leave to appeal this decision.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the defence of qualified privilege was established, and consequently, whether there was any basis to overturn the judgment in favour of the respondent. A secondary issue related to whether the significant costs expended by the appellant in pursuing the appeal, relative to the small award of damages, provided a sufficient basis for granting leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Allsop P and Giles JA, found no error in the approach of the primary judge. The Court affirmed that the absence of a finding of malice was determinative in upholding the defence of qualified privilege. Furthermore, the Court considered that the substantial costs incurred for a minor award of damages did not, in itself, constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal, particularly in the absence of any arguable error in the primary judge's substantive findings.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.