Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 13]

In Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 13], the plaintiff, a former member of parliament, brought a defamation action against the defendants, who published articles in newspapers, online, and via social media. The articles made imputations about the plaintiff's living arrangements and the use of parliamentary letterhead. The plaintiff sought damages for the defamatory publications, claiming they caused significant harm to his reputation and career.

The court had to determine whether the imputations were substantially true, thereby justifying the publications, or if they were made under a qualified privilege. The defendants argued that the articles were justified as the imputations were substantially true and that they were protected by qualified privilege as they were political communications. The court also had to consider whether the defendants acted reasonably by failing to make reasonable enquiries, provide an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond, and apologise for the publications. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of publication, the effect on the plaintiff, and the defendants' conduct during the litigation.

The jury found that some but not all of the imputations were defamatory, with one imputation not found to be defamatory but subject to appeal. The court held that the imputations concerning the plaintiff's living arrangements were defamatory, while the imputation about the use of parliamentary letterhead was not. The court found that the defendants had failed to act reasonably by not making reasonable enquiries or providing an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages for economic loss, special damage, and causation, including the loss of preselection for a federal election and the failure to obtain subsequent employment. The court also considered the aggravating circumstances of the defendants' conduct in publishing the articles further and continuing to do so despite the litigation. The final orders of the court included the awarding of damages to the plaintiff and a finding that the imputation about the use of parliamentary letterhead was not defamatory, subject to appeal.