Legal Research
Cases
Manefield v Child Care NSW

Manefield v Child Care NSW

Case [2010] NSWSC 1420 15 December 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Manefield v Child Care NSW [2010] NSWSC 1420

HEARING DATE(S): 22-23/11/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
15 December 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Defamation List

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: 1. There shall be a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $150,000.
2. The defendant should pay the plaintiff’s costs.
3. Liberty to apply on 2 days notice.

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - dismissed manager - establishing business in same industry - publication to industry - whether imputations conveyed - defence qualified privilege at common law - malice - aggravated damages.

LEGISLATION CITED: Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001
Defamation Act 2005

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380
Megna v Marshall [2010] NSWSC 686
Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181; 149 ER 1044
Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1
Adam v Ward (1917) AC 309
Hunt v Great Northern Railway Co [1891] 2 QB 189
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; 218 CLR 366
Guise v Kauvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102
Andreyevich v Kosovich (1947) SR (NSW) 357
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corp Ltd [2010] HCA 25
Justin v Associated Newspapers Limited (1966) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 17; (1967) 1 NSWLR 61
Mowlds v Fergusson (1939) 40 SR (NSW) 311
Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36
Huntley v Ward (1959) 6 CB (NS) 514
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1990) 20 NSWLR 511
Weldon & Co v Harbinson [2000] NSWSC 272
Davidson v Barclay's Bank Ltd (1940) 1 All ER 316
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135
Gross v Weston [2007] NSWCA 1
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44
Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946
Trigell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497

PARTIES: Bruce Manefield (Pl)
Association of Quality Child Care Centres of NSW Inc t/as Child Care NSW (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/297613

COUNSEL: B R McClintock SC/R de Meyrick (Pl)
R Rasmussen (Def)

SOLICITORS: Paris J Carr & Assoc (Pl)
Guild Legal Limited (Def)

Bruce MANEFIELD

ASSOCIATION OF QUALITY CHILD CARE CENTRES

OF NSW INC. T/AS CHILD CARE NSW

(2009/297613)

I N D E X

Para No.

1. LIABILITY

The matter complained of.
1

The issues.
3

Background.
6

Employment by Child Care New South Wales.
10

Proposed federal organisation.
31

Termination of Mr Manefield.
39

The establishment of Early Learning Australia.
42

A planned media launch.
45

Were the imputations conveyed?
55

Qualified privilege at Common Law.
87

Submissions of the parties.
108

The circumstances of the publication.
122

The question of confidentiality.
124

The public interest.
133

Express malice.
143

Submissions of the parties on malice.
149

Was there malice?
161

2. DAMAGES

Principles with respect to damages.
175

Damage to reputation.
177

Hurt to feelings.
189

Aggravated damages.
198

Quantification of damages.
205

Orders.
209

*********

1. LIABILITY

The matter complained of.

Mr Bruce Manefield (the plaintiff) has commenced an action for defamation against…

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 Manefield v Child Care NSW

Details

AGLC: Manefield v Child Care NSW [2010] NSWSC 1420
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1420
Decision Date: 15 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Manefield v Child Care NSW, the dispute involved a dismissed manager who established a competing business in the same industry as her former employer. The manager alleged defamation based on communications made by her former employer to the industry. The court was required to determine whether the communications conveyed the defamatory imputations and whether the defence of qualified privilege at common law was available, including the presence of malice and the entitlement to aggravated damages.

The legal issues included whether the communications made by the former employer conveyed the alleged defamatory imputations. The court also needed to examine whether the defence of qualified privilege at common law was applicable. This defence requires an honest belief in the duty to communicate and the absence of malice. Finally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to aggravated damages.

The court found that the communications did not convey the defamatory imputations as alleged. It held that the defence of qualified privilege was available because the former employer had an honest belief in the duty to communicate and there was no malice. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for aggravated damages was dismissed. The court concluded that the former employer's communications were made in good faith and for a legitimate purpose, and thus the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.

Orders