Hall v Hannaford - [1999] NSWSC 1132

CITATION: Hall v Hannaford [1999] NSWSC 1132

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 20590 of 1995

HEARING DATE(S): 19 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 November 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: Justification & comment - qualified privilege -at common law only - sufficiency of particulars - ambit of interrogatories

ACTS CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (as amended)

CASES CITED: Edmondson v Birch & Co Limited [1905] 2 KB 523
Makim v Nationwide News Pty Limited (Hunt J, unreported, 2 March 1990)
White & Co v Credit Reform Association & Credit Index Limited [1905] 1 KB 653

DECISION: See paragraph 17

DLJ: 4

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

No. 20590 of 1995

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 1999

TREVOR HALL
(Plaintiff)

v
JOHN HANNAFORD
(Defendant)

Judgment (Justification & comment - qualified privilege - at common law only - sufficiency of particulars - ambit of interrogatories)

1 This matter is listed for trial on 31 January 2000. 2 The first application by the plaintiff is pursuant to a Notice of Motion filed on 14 October 1999 in which he seeks to have struck out the particulars of the defence of truth. 3 I delivered a judgment on the same subject matter on 20 August 1999 ([1999] NSWSC 838). 4 Consequent to that judgment (which also struck out a s 16 defence), the defendant, on 22 October 1999, by consent, filed in Court an Amended Defence to a Further Amended Statement of Claim. There had been filed in Court on 24 September 1999 a “Consolidated Statement of Particulars”. 5 With respect to the Consolidated Statement of Particulars of the defence of justification, I am easily persuaded by the contents of the document that the defence adequately has been particularised. Much of the argument with which I was concerned on 19 November was really focused upon suggestions as to the inadequacy of particulars by reason of information in the hands of the plaintiff. Those submissions pointed to issues to be litigated at the trial on the question of whether or not the defendant has made out a case of substantial truth. When one reads the document and asks the question “has the defendant made known its case to the plaintiff?” the answer must be in the affirmative. Standing alone the defendant’s particulars are, in my view, now adequate. The plaintiff has the further advantage of having heard argument in support of the particulars by reference to matters of evidence and I do not consider that he can legitimately contend that the defendant has failed to make his case known. No basis for striking out the particulars has been established. 6 The defendant has pleaded qualified privilege. It is important to note that the defendant in this regard does not rely upon s 22 of the

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.

Continue reading Hall v Hannaford

Details

AGLC: Hall v Hannaford [1999] NSWSC 1132
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1132
Decision Date: 24 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Hannaford, heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, involved a defamation action brought by the plaintiff, Hall, against the defendant, Hannaford. Hall alleged that Hannaford made defamatory statements about him in a letter to a third party, which was subsequently brought to Hall's attention. Hall sought damages for the alleged defamation, and the dispute centred around the question of whether Hannaford's statements were protected by the defence of qualified privilege at common law.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant's statements were protected by qualified privilege at common law, the sufficiency of the particulars provided by the plaintiff in relation to the alleged defamatory statements, and the scope of interrogatories permissible in the context of this case. The court had to determine whether Hannaford's statements were made in good faith and without malice, and whether they were communicated to a person with a legitimate interest in receiving them.

The court found that Hannaford's statements were indeed protected by the defence of qualified privilege at common law, as they were made in good faith and without malice, and were communicated to a person with a legitimate interest in receiving them. The court further held that the plaintiff's particulars were sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the specific defamatory statements in question. In relation to the interrogatories, the court found that they were permissible and appropriate in the context of this case. Consequently, the court dismissed Hall's defamation action, finding that Hannaford's statements were protected by qualified privilege and that Hall had not discharged the onus of proving defamation.

In summary, the court dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action, finding that the defendant's statements were protected by qualified privilege at common law. The court held that the plaintiff's particulars were sufficient, and that the interrogatories were permissible in the context of this case.

Orders