Reported Decision:
6 DCLR (NSW) 247
District Court
CITATION: Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3) [2007] NSWDC 268 HEARING DATE(S): 27/08/07-30/08/07, 04/09/07, 14/09/07
JUDGMENT DATE:
13 December 2007JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ DECISION: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff in relation to the first publication (on or about 6 October 2001) in the sum of $1,000; (2) Judgment for the plaintiff on the second publication (on or about 14 October 2002) in the sum of $5,000; (3) Judgment for the defendant in relation to the third publication (on or about 18 December 2005); (4) Judgment for the plaintiff in relation to the fourth publication (27 March 2006) in the sum of $10,000; (5) Parties have liberty to bring in short minutes of order containing the mathematically agreed interest payable on the judgment of $16,000; (6) Issues of costs reserved, and the parties to have liberty to apply; (7) Exhibits retained for 28 days. CATCHWORDS: Tort – defamation – series of four slanders published to the same person – defence of triviality – damages – aggravated compensatory damages LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss.13 and 46A
Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), s.20
Defamation Act 1957 (Tas), s.9(2)CASES CITED: Ainsworth v Burden [2006] NSWCA 199
Andrew v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225
Assaf v Skalkos [1999] NSWSC 1332
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) Aust Torts Rep 80-691
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176 at 193
Cuming v Hennessy [2005] NSWSC 1219
David Simon Co v Mather [1977] VR 516
David v Chibo [2006] NSWSC 1257
Doelle v Bedey [2007] QCA 395
Elliott v The Age Company Ltd [2006] VSC 52
English and Scottish Co-operative Mortgage and Investment Society Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd [1940] KB 440
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187
Harrigan v Jones (2000) Aust Tort Rep 81-621
Hennessy v Lynch [2006] NSWDC 26
Hennessy v Lynch (No. 2) [2006] NSWDC 49
Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254
Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) 184 NR 1 (SCC)
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and Another v Gacic and Others (2007) 235 ALR 402
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 291
Jones v Sutton (2004) 61 NSWLR 614
Jones v Sutton (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 203
Kiam v Neill [1996] EMLR 493 (CA)
King and Mergen Holdings Pty Ltd v McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305
Lang v Willis (1934) 52 CLR 637
Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37
McMullen v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 925
Moit v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 322
Monti-Haitsma Enterprises Pty Ltd v Lord (New South Wales Court of Appeal, 12 May 1988, unreported)
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Limited [1977] 1 NSW 749
Perkins v New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 15 August 1997, unreported)
Rigby v Mirror Newspapers (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 34
Rogers…
Continue reading Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3) [2007] NSWDC 268
- Case
- [2007] NSWDC 268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3) involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, concerning a series of slanderous statements made to the plaintiff over a period of time. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for four separate occasions of defamation: one on or about 6 October 2001, a second on or about 14 October 2002, a third on or about 18 December 2005, and a fourth on 27 March 2006.
The central legal issues the court was required to address included the application of the defence of triviality to each of the alleged defamatory publications, the calculation of compensatory damages for the proven instances of defamation, and the appropriateness of awarding aggravated compensatory damages in the context of the proven instances. The court also had to consider whether the defendant’s conduct warranted the imposition of aggravated damages.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the first and second defamatory statements were not trivial and awarded the plaintiff damages of $1,000 and $5,000, respectively. The court ruled that the third statement was trivial and did not result in any award of damages to the plaintiff. For the fourth statement, the court found it to be more serious and awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in damages. The court considered the cumulative effect of the defamatory statements and the impact on the plaintiff's reputation, while also examining the defence of triviality for the third statement. The court reserved the issue of costs, allowing for potential applications by either party.
The final orders of the court included judgments in favour of the plaintiff for the first, second, and fourth defamatory publications, with specific amounts awarded. The parties were granted liberty to submit agreed minutes of order for interest on the total judgment sum of $16,000. The exhibits were retained for a period of 28 days, and the issue of costs was reserved for further applications by the parties.
The central legal issues the court was required to address included the application of the defence of triviality to each of the alleged defamatory publications, the calculation of compensatory damages for the proven instances of defamation, and the appropriateness of awarding aggravated compensatory damages in the context of the proven instances. The court also had to consider whether the defendant’s conduct warranted the imposition of aggravated damages.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the first and second defamatory statements were not trivial and awarded the plaintiff damages of $1,000 and $5,000, respectively. The court ruled that the third statement was trivial and did not result in any award of damages to the plaintiff. For the fourth statement, the court found it to be more serious and awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in damages. The court considered the cumulative effect of the defamatory statements and the impact on the plaintiff's reputation, while also examining the defence of triviality for the third statement. The court reserved the issue of costs, allowing for potential applications by either party.
The final orders of the court included judgments in favour of the plaintiff for the first, second, and fourth defamatory publications, with specific amounts awarded. The parties were granted liberty to submit agreed minutes of order for interest on the total judgment sum of $16,000. The exhibits were retained for a period of 28 days, and the issue of costs was reserved for further applications by the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in relation to the first publication (on or about 6 October 2001) in the sum of $1,000; (2) Judgment for the plaintiff on the second publication (on or about 14 October 2002) in the sum of $5,000; (3) Judgment for the defendant in relation to the third publication (on or about 18 December 2005); (4) Judgment for the plaintiff in relation to the fourth publication (27 March 2006) in the sum of $10,000; (5) Parties have liberty to bring in short minutes of order containing the mathematically agreed interest payable on the judgment of $16,000; (6) Issues of costs reserved, and the parties to have liberty to apply; (7) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
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.