Hall v Hannaford - [1999] NSWSC 1197

CITATION: Hall v Hannaford [1999] NSWSC 1197

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20590 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 29 November 1999
1 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 December 1999

PARTIES :

TREVOR HALL
(Plaintiff)
v
JOHN HANNAFORD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
J C Gibson
(Plaintiff)
B McClintock S.C.
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Denes Ebner
(Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitors Office
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Defamation Act 1974 ss 15 & 16 - contextual imputations - re-consideration of judgment 20 August 1999 (NSWSC 838)

ACTS CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (as amended)

CASES CITED: Allen v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (unreported, 2 December 1988)
Hall & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Limited (unreported, 5 November 1998, Levine J)
Perkins v Harris (Court of Appeal, unreported, 26 May 1995)
Plato Films Ltd v Spedel [1972] AC 1090
TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited v Antoniadis (1998) 44 NSWLR 682
Waterhouse & Anor v Hickie (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-347

DECISION: See paragraph 24

DLJ: 5

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 205090 of 1995

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 1999

TREVOR HALL
(Plaintiff)

v
JOHN HANNAFORD
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT ( Defamation Act 1974 ss 15 & 16 - contextual imputations - re-consideration of judgment 20 August 1999 (NSWSC 838))

1 On 20 August 1999 (NSWSC 838: DLJ: 3) I delivered a ruling in relation to then pleaded defence under s 16 of the Defamation Act 1974. 2 The ruling was delivered in the context of an application concerning, inter alia, the adequacy of particulars of justification and comment. It was contended for the plaintiff that the form of the Defence then pleaded by the defendant (see paragraph 43 of the judgment) did not plead an available defence under s 16 of the Act because it “pleaded back” the plaintiff’s imputations. The relevant part of my judgment set out in paragraphs 45 to 49 as follows:

It seems to me that this submission is well founded. The structure of the defence provided for by s 16 has been considered by the Court of Appeal in Perkins v Harris (26 May 1995); Waterhouse & Anor v Hickie (26 May 1995) (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-347; and, TCN Channel Pty Limited v Antoniadis (1998) 44 NSWLR 682. I considered the matter in Hall & Anor v Nationwide News Pty Limited (5 November 1998, unreported (DLJ: 2)).

Contextual imputations are imputations not pleaded by the plaintiff. They are imputations that are not “imputation(s) complained of” by the plaintiff. They are “other” imputations.

Section 15 provides the defence of truth in relation to imputations “complained of” by the plaintiff. Section 16 provides a defence whereby a defendant can plead “other” imputations than those “complained of” by the plaintiff which arise at the same time and in addition to those “complained of” by the plaintiff and provided they differ in substance from those pleaded by the plaintiff.

Where a defendant justifies some but not all of the imputations “complained of” by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hall v Hannaford and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 1197
Decision Date: 8 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Hannaford arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Hall, brought an action against the defendant, Hannaford, alleging defamation. The crux of the dispute centred on statements made by Hannaford that were published in a newsletter and conveyed to the plaintiff's employer and colleagues, leading to a deterioration in their professional relationship. The plaintiff sought damages for the defamatory imputations made against her character and professional abilities.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the statements made by Hannaford were defamatory, and if so, what the defamatory imputations were. A key point of contention was whether the imputations were contextual, meaning they required a specific understanding of the circumstances in which they were made to be defamatory, or whether they were capable of being understood as defamatory in their own right. The court also had to consider the applicability of sections 15 and 16 of the Defamation Act 1974, which pertain to the re-consideration of judgments and the assessment of damages.

The court found that the statements were indeed defamatory and identified the imputations as damaging to the plaintiff's professional reputation. The decision highlighted the importance of context in understanding the full impact of the statements. The court determined that the imputations were not merely contextual but were defamatory even when considered outside of the specific circumstances. The court's judgment underscored the need for a careful consideration of the interplay between context and the intrinsic defamatory nature of the statements. The court also addressed the implications of the Defamation Act 1974, noting that the statutory provisions did not alter the fundamental principles governing defamation claims.

The final orders of the court awarded the plaintiff damages for the defamatory statements made by the defendant. The court emphasised the need for an objective assessment of the statements and their impact on the plaintiff's professional standing. The decision also underscored the importance of context in defamation law, but clarified that this did not absolve the defendant from liability if the statements were defamatory in their own right.

Orders