Legal Research
Cases
Manock v Moles

Manock v Moles

Case [2008] SADC 90 17 July 2008

Defamation

Constitutional Validity

Compensatory Damages

Constitutional Law

Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
MANOCK v MOLES
[2008] SADC 90
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
17 July 2008
PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS
Defamation - Fair comment - In general - Elements and nature of defence.
Constitutional Law - Operation and effect of Commonwealth Constitution - Restrictions on Commonwealth and State Legislation - Rights and freedoms implied in Commonwealth Constitution - Freedom of political communication - Particular cases - Defamation - Scope and application of Lange defence - Meaning of "government and political matters".
Words and Phrases - "Government and political matters".
Defamation - damages - assessment and mitigation - evidence.
General Steel Industries Inc v Commission for Railways (NSW) & Ors (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130; Manock v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (2006) 95 SASR 462; Pryke v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 175 at 192, applied.
Chapman v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2002) 77 SASR 181 at 185; Peek v Channel Seven Pty Ltd (2006) 94 SASR 196 at [4]; Morosi v Mirror Newspaper Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 749; ABC v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430, discussed.
Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345 at 355; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 at 567 and 571; APLA Ltd v Legal Services Commissioner (NSW) (2005) 79 ALJR 1620 at [27]; Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269 at [413]; Herald & Weekly Times and Bolt v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1; Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Popovic (2003) 9 VR 1; Chappell v Mirror Newspapers [1984] Aust Torts Rep 68,943 at 68,952 (NSWCA); Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 99, considered.

MANOCK v MOLES
[2008] SADC 90
Preliminary

For several decades the appellant, Colin Manock (“Dr Manock”), was a Senior Director of the Forensic Pathology based in the State Forensic Science Centre in Adelaide. He was a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. In those capacities he must have performed thousands of autopsies and given evidence in hundreds of criminal trials for the prosecution, mostly murder cases. He retired some years ago.
The underlying proceedings
The particular matter now before the Court is an appeal from a decision of a Master, who struck out substantial portions of a defence in proceedings issued by Dr Manock against the appellant/defendant (“the defendant”), claiming damages for defamation. For the reasons outlined in Beare v Light Council[1], an appeal from a Master is by way of a full rehearing on the merits, but that is inconsequential in this case, as the appellant argued his position on the footing that error of law was involved anyway.
[1] [2005] SADC 72.
The primary action in defamation centres on three sets or groups of publication. The first, comprises what the pleadings refer to as the first, second and third publications, concerning an interview on Channel Seven Adelaide, initially on 23 August 2002 and later…

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 Manock v Moles

Details

AGLC: Manock v Moles [2008] SADC 90
Case: [2008] SADC 90
Decision Date: 17 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Manock v Moles involved a dispute concerning the defence of fair comment in a defamation action, which was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Moles, published an article in a local newspaper alleging that the appellant, Manock, had engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to his role as a local council member. Manock subsequently sued Moles for defamation, and the case proceeded to determine the availability of the fair comment defence under the circumstances.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the alleged defamatory statement was on a matter of government or political significance, thereby allowing for the application of the Lange defence. The defence of fair comment in defamation cases requires the defendant to demonstrate that the comments made were based on true facts and were honestly held opinions on matters of public interest. The Court was tasked with interpreting the scope of "government and political matters" and determining whether the subject of the alleged corrupt conduct fell within this definition.

In its decision, the Court held that the alleged corrupt conduct of Manock, as a local council member, was indeed a matter of government and political significance. The Court found that the Lange defence could be invoked as the subject matter of the article pertained to the public interest and involved the integrity of local government. The Court also considered the evidence presented regarding the assessment and mitigation of damages, concluding that the defamation had caused significant harm to Manock's reputation and warranted compensation. The Court ultimately ruled in favour of Manock, awarding him damages against Moles for the defamatory publication.

The final orders of the Court included a declaration that the defamatory publication by Moles was indeed on a matter of government and political significance, thereby permitting the application of the Lange defence. The Court also ordered Moles to pay damages to Manock for the harm caused by the defamatory statement, subject to any mitigation of damages deemed appropriate.

Orders