Harris v Perkins

The plaintiff, Harris, brought an action against the defendant, Perkins, alleging defamation in the form of a book published by Perkins that contained statements defamatory of Harris. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the statements made by Perkins in the book were defamatory of Harris and, if so, whether the defendant had a defence of truth or qualified privilege available to them.

The court held that the statements made in the book were indeed defamatory of Harris. In assessing the truth of the statements, the court found that Perkins had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the truth of the defamatory statements. The court further found that the defence of qualified privilege was not applicable in this case as the statements were not made on a occasion when the defendant had a legal, moral or social duty to make the statement to the persons to whom it was made. Therefore, the court found that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff.

The court made an interlocutory judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Harris, and against the defendant, Perkins. The court awarded the plaintiff damages and ordered the defendant to publish a retraction and apology in a prominent newspaper. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs.