Lloyd-Jones v Allen

Case [2012] NSWCA 230

Court of Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: Lloyd-Jones v Allen
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 230
Hearing Date(s): 06.03.12, 07.03.12
Decision Date: 01 August 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before: Beazley JA at [1]
McColl JA at [2]
Nicholas J at [3]
Decision:

(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Direct the appellant to file the notice of appeal in the form of the draft in the White Book within seven days of judgment.
(3) Appeal allowed in part.
(4) Orders (1) and (2) made by Colefax DCJ on 9 May 2011 be set aside.
(5) Remit the matter to the District Court for the determination of:
(i) the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) in the statement of claim; and
(ii) in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim, the assessment of damages.
(6) Costs of the remitted hearing to be in the discretion of the trial judge.
(7) Each party to bear his and her own costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: DEFAMATION - defences of truth, common law qualified privilege, comment and honest opinion - letter to community interest group and media publishers - whether defence of truth to all imputations - whether statements of fact or comment - whether each publication made on occasion of common law qualified privilege - whether evidence of malice - award of damages set aside - new trial on limited issues
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation [2010] HCA 25; (2010) 241 CLR 79
Andreyevich v Kosovich (1947) 47 SR(NSW) 357
Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 354
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; (2004) 218 CLR 366
Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCA 60; (2007) 232 CLR 245
Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon [2011] HCA 30; (2011) 243 CLR 298
Hawke v Tamworth Newspaper Co Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 699
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
Morosi v Mirror Newspapers [1977] 2 NSWLR 749
Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1
Spautz v Williams [1983] 2 NSWLR 506
Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1994] HCA 45; (1994-1995) 182 CLR 211
Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181; 149 ER 1044
Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Laurel Lloyd-Jones - applicant/appellant
Anthony James Allen - respondent
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
C A Evatt/R Rasmussen - applicant/appellant
B A M Connell/A R Power - respondent
-…

Continue reading Lloyd-Jones v Allen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lloyd-Jones v Allen [2012] NSWCA 230
Case
[2012] NSWCA 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Lloyd-Jones v Allen*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a defamation action. The dispute arose from a letter written by the appellant to a community interest group and media publishers, which the respondent alleged contained defamatory imputations. The primary judge had made certain orders, which the appellant sought to have set aside.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the defence of truth was established for all the imputations pleaded, whether the statements made in the letter were statements of fact or comment, and whether each publication was made on an occasion protected by common law qualified privilege. The Court also had to consider whether there was evidence of malice that would defeat any claim of qualified privilege.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the orders made by the District Court. It reasoned that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the defences and the evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the District Court for a new trial on limited issues. Specifically, the District Court was to determine the defence of truth concerning imputations pleaded in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the statement of claim. If the defence of truth failed for those imputations, the District Court was then to assess damages. The costs of the remitted hearing were left to the discretion of the trial judge, and each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Grant leave to appeal.

(2) Direct the appellant to file the notice of appeal in the form of the draft in the White Book within seven days of judgment.

(3) Appeal allowed in part.

(4) Orders (1) and (2) made by Colefax DCJ on 9 May 2011 be set aside.

(5) Remit the matter to the District Court for the determination of:

(i) the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) in the statement of claim; and

(ii) in the event the defendant fails to establish the defence of truth to the imputations pleaded in (a) and (c) of the amended statement of claim, the assessment of damages.

(6) Costs of the remitted hearing to be in the discretion of the trial judge.

(7) Each party to bear his and her own costs of the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.