Jones v Jackson (No 2) - [2023] NSWDC 410

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Jackson (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 410
Hearing dates: 14 September 2023
Date of orders: 06 October 2023
Decision date: 06 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), by reason of the plaintiff having failed to establish serious harm, these proceedings are struck out and dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.
(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords:
TORT – defamation – plaintiff’s former de facto publishes Facebook comment saying the plaintiff, who had just received a sporting award, did not have the spirit of sport when it came to his personal life or telling the truth about his disability - preliminary ruling on “serious harm” – post read by a small number of persons - publication “not a numbers game” – no evidence any reader thought less of the plaintiff by reason of publication of the post – causation - no connection between matter complained of and other publications by third parties - plaintiff failed to prove publication of the post caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation – proceedings dismissed with costs

Legislation Cited:
Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A
Defamation Act 2013 (UK) c 26, s 1
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Ames v Spamhouse Project Limited [2015] 1 WLR 3409
Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84
Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB)
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1962] 2 All ER 737; [1964] AC 371
Economou v De Freitas [2016] EWHC 1218 (QB)
Hun v Aljazeera International (Malaysia) SDN BHD [2023] FCA 1103
Jones v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 364
Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612
Mardas v New York Times Co [2009] EMLR 8
Perkins v Floradale Productions Pty Ltd & Ors (District Court of NSW, Walmsley SC DCJ, 28 May 2013, unreported)
Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198
Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085
Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2016] WASCA 83
Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283
Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240
Toomey v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 291
Wen Yue He v Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 253

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Stuart Jones (Plaintiff)
Letitia Jackson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A Munro (Plaintiff)
Ms M Harris (Defendant)
Solicitors:
O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Williamson Isabella Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00366567
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The application before the court

These are proceedings for a serious harm ruling brought pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) (“the Act”).
The proceedings were adjourned for the reasons set out in my earlier judgment of 30 March 2023 (Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76 at [17]), namely to permit the parties to consider their position concerning a forthcoming Four Corners

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 Jones v Jackson (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jones v Jackson (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 410
Case: [2023] NSWDC 410
Decision Date: 06 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Jackson (No 2), the plaintiff, Mr Jones, sought to establish that a defamatory statement published by his former de facto partner, Ms Jackson, on Facebook constituted serious harm to his reputation. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The comment in question, posted after Mr Jones had received a sporting award, implied that he lacked the spirit of sport in his personal life and was dishonest about his disability. The court was tasked with determining whether the publication of this comment amounted to serious harm under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).

The court addressed two primary legal issues: first, whether the publication of the Facebook comment caused serious harm to Mr Jones' reputation; and second, whether there was causation between the defamatory content and the alleged harm. The court noted that the post was read by a relatively small number of people and found no evidence that any reader held a diminished opinion of Mr Jones due to the comment. Additionally, there was no connection between the Facebook post and other publications by third parties that might have contributed to the alleged harm. The court concluded that Mr Jones had not met the burden of proving that the post caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.

Given the findings, the court ruled in favour of Ms Jackson. The proceedings were dismissed, and Mr Jones was ordered to pay Ms Jackson's costs, with liberty to apply for a more favourable order. The exhibits were retained pending further orders. This decision underscores the stringent requirements for establishing serious harm in defamation cases and highlights the importance of evidence in proving causation and the impact of the defamatory statement on the plaintiff's reputation.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), by reason of the plaintiff having failed to establish serious harm, these proceedings are struck out and dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply.

(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jones v Jackson (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 410
Hearing dates:	14 September 2023
Date of orders:	06 October 2023
Decision date:	06 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Pursuant to s 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), by reason of the plaintiff having failed to establish serious harm, these proceedings are struck out and dismissed. (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs, with liberty to apply. (3) Exhibits retained until further order.
Catchwords:	TORT – defamation – plaintiff’s former de facto publishes Facebook comment saying the plaintiff, who had just received a sporting award, did not have the spirit of sport when it came to his personal life or telling the truth about his disability - preliminary ruling on “serious harm” – post read by a small number of persons - publication “not a numbers game” – no evidence any reader thought less of the plaintiff by reason of publication of the post – causation - no connection between matter complained of and other publications by third parties - plaintiff failed to prove publication of the post caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation – proceedings dismissed with costs
Legislation Cited:	Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A Defamation Act 2013 (UK) c 26, s 1 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Ames v Spamhouse Project Limited [2015] 1 WLR 3409 Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84 Dhir v Saddler [2017] EWHC 3155 (QB) Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1962] 2 All ER 737; [1964] AC 371 Economou v De Freitas [2016] EWHC 1218 (QB) Hun v Aljazeera International (Malaysia) SDN BHD [2023] FCA 1103 Jones v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 364 Jones v Jackson [2023] NSWDC 76 Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612 Mardas v New York Times Co [2009] EMLR 8 Perkins v Floradale Productions Pty Ltd & Ors (District Court of NSW, Walmsley SC DCJ, 28 May 2013, unreported) Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198 Selkirk v Hocking (No 2) [2023] FCA 1085 Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2016] WASCA 83 Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 Supaphien v Chaiyabarn [2023] ACTSC 240 Toomey v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 291 Wen Yue He v Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 253
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Stuart Jones (Plaintiff) Letitia Jackson (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Munro (Plaintiff) Ms M Harris (Defendant) Solicitors: O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors (Plaintiff) Williamson Isabella Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00366567
Publication restriction:	Nil