SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Hall v Hanson |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 369 |
Hearing Date: | 20 November 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 11 December 2017 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | The Application in Proceeding, filed on 10 October 2017, is dismissed with costs. |
Catchwords: | TORTS – DEFAMATION – Defences – defence of contextual truth – whether appropriate to strike out contextual imputations prior to trial – qualified privilege at common law – whether privilege established because publication was made to a wide audience – application dismissed – s 136 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 136, 136(a), 136(b) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 425 |
Cases Cited: | Abou-Lokmeh v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 228 Braddock v Bevins [1948] 1 KB 580 |
Texts Cited: | Alastair Mullis et al (eds), Gatley on Libel and Slander (Sweet and Maxwell, 12th ed, 2013) |
Parties: | Dean Hall (Plaintiff) Jeremy Hanson (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel W Houghton QC & J Hooper (Plaintiff) K Smark SC (Defendant) |
| Solicitors Slater and Gordon Lawyers (Plaintiff) Meyer Vandenberg Lawyers (Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 237 of 2016 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The plaintiff has brought proceedings claiming damages for defamation against the defendant. The plaintiff is the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Branch of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The defendant was, at the relevant time, the leader of the opposition in the ACT Legislative Assembly. Proceedings against the second defendant, the operator of a radio station, have been settled. The plaintiff claims damages arising out of statements made by the first defendant during the course of a radio interview on 16 March 2016. The subject matter of the interview was a memorandum of understanding between the ACT government and Unions ACT, a peak union body, which contemplated the sharing of information about applications for tenders with the ACT government. The plaintiff alleges that statements made by the first defendant gave rise to the following defamatory imputations:
a.the plaintiff is so untrustworthy, having been convicted of criminal charges, that he must not be given access to company tender documents in…
Continue reading Hall v Hanson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hall v Hanson [2017] ACTSC 369
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 369
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the defence of contextual truth, considering whether it was appropriate to strike out certain contextual imputations prior to the trial. The court held that the defence of contextual truth required a preliminary assessment of the evidence, but in this instance, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a decision on the matter at the interlocutory stage. Regarding the qualified privilege, the court determined that the publication was not made to a wide audience, and therefore, the privilege did not apply. The court also considered the provisions of section 136 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), which deals with the striking out of pleadings. The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for striking out the contextual imputations.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the application filed by the defendant on 10 October 2017, with costs awarded against the defendant. The court found that the contextual imputations could not be struck out, and the defence of qualified privilege was not applicable. The matter will proceed to trial with the remaining imputations intact.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Application in Proceeding, filed on 10 October 2017, is dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.