Legal Research
Cases
Harrigan v Jones

Harrigan v Jones

Case [2000] NSWSC 814 18 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 814

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20486 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 August 2000

PARTIES :

BILL HARRIGAN
(Plaintiff)
v
ALAN JONES
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
C Evatt
(Plaintiff)
B Connell
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Williamson Solicitors
(Plaintiff)
Bush Burke & Company
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Strike out application - sufficiency of particulars of malice and aggravated damages

CASES CITED: Humphreys v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (Hunt J, unreported, 18 April 1980)
King v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1983) 1 NSWLR 31
NRMA Insurance Ltd v Flanagan (1982) 1 NSWLR 585
Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 58
Waterhouse v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 81

DECISION: See paragraph 77

DLJ: 1
CAV
[2000] NSWSC 814

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

No. 20486 of 1999

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 18 AUGUST 2000

BILL HARRIGAN
(Plaintiff)
v

ALAN JONES
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Strike out application - sufficiency of particulars of malice and aggravated damages)

1 The defendant has moved the Court to strike out the plaintiff’s particulars of malice and particulars of aggravated damages. 2 On 6 April 2000 the jury held that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff in a radio broadcast on 2UE on 8 September 1998. 3 The jury found that the publication complained of conveyed the following defamatory imputations of the plaintiff:

“(a) The plaintiff carries out his duties as a referee in a biased manner.

(e) As a referee, the plaintiff favours ex super league teams over ex-ARL teams when awarding penalties.

(f) As a referee the plaintiff favours Brisbane over their opponents when awarding penalties”.

4 The defendant has pleaded truth under s 15 of the Defamation Act 1974, qualified privilege under s 22 and at common law, comment pursuant to s 32 and a defence of unlikelihood of harm pursuant to s 13. 5 In reply to the defence of privilege the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant was actuated by express malice and the following particulars are given:

“(a) The imputations were false to the knowledge of the defendant.

(b) The imputations were published by the defendant with reckless indifference to their truth or accuracy.

(c) The defendant wrongfully failed to make proper enquiries which would have established that the imputations complained of were false.

(d) The defendant wrongfully failed to give the plaintiff an opportunity to refute or explain the allegations made against him by the defendant.

(e) Improper motive being an intent to injure the plaintiff as evidenced by the unfair mode and manner of publication.

(f) Improper motive being an intent to injure the plaintiff as evidenced by the publication of the matter complained of which was excessive and unfair.

(g) Programme intrinsically malicious.

(h) Plaintiff not fairly treated by the defendant on the programme.

(i) Wrongful failure to retract and apologise.

(j) The defendant was carrying out a vendetta against the plaintiff.

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 Harrigan v Jones

Details

AGLC: Harrigan v Jones [2000] NSWSC 814
Case: [2000] NSWSC 814
Decision Date: 18 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harrigan v Jones involved a dispute where the plaintiff sought damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published false and defamatory statements that damaged their reputation. The plaintiff sought general and aggravated damages, as well as an order for the defendant to publish a retraction and apology. The defendant filed a strike-out application, arguing that the particulars of malice and aggravated damages were not sufficiently particularised.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claim was sufficiently particularised to proceed. The court considered whether the particulars provided were adequate to inform the defendant of the nature and basis of the claim, and whether the plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of succeeding at trial. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff's claim for aggravated damages was sufficiently particularised, given that such damages are not automatically available in defamation cases.

The court found that the particulars of malice were sufficient, as they provided enough detail to enable the defendant to respond to the claim. However, the court found that the particulars of aggravated damages were not sufficiently particularised, as they did not provide enough detail to enable the defendant to respond to the claim. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for aggravated damages was speculative and uncertain, and therefore could not proceed. The court dismissed the strike-out application in part, allowing the plaintiff's claim for general damages and retraction/apology to proceed, but striking out the claim for aggravated damages.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application up to a specified date, and that the plaintiff amend the particulars of claim to remove the claim for aggravated damages. The court also ordered that the matter proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

Orders