Mason v Doyle - [2005] NSWSC 127

CITATION:
Mason v Doyle [2005] NSWSC 127

HEARING DATE(S): 17 February 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

4 March 2005

JURISDICTION:
20137/04

JUDGMENT OF:
Studdert J

DECISION:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $50,942.00; costs reserved.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Defamation Act, ss 46, 46A

CASES CITED:
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1992-93) 178 CLR 44
Cotter v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 503
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Jamoo v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2004] NSWSC 126
Konstantinidis v Foreign Media Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 1135
Markovic v White [2004] NSWSC 37
Martin v University of New South Wales (unreported, Dodd DCJ, 17 October 2000)
O'Shane v John Fairfax [2004] NSWSC 140
Rogers v Nationwide News (2003) 201 ALR 184
SRSC v Beaumont & Ors [2004] NSWSC 164
Tingle v Harbour Radio Pty Limited & Anor (No. 4) [1999] NSWSC 461
West v Nationwide News [2003] NSWSC 505

PARTIES:
Kilner Mason (Plaintiff)
Phillip Doyle (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20137/04

COUNSEL:
B.A.M. Connell/S.T. Chrysanthou (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Photios Vouroudis & Co. (Plaintiff)
No appearance (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

STUDDERT J

Friday 4 March 2005

20137/04 KILNER MASON v PHILLIP DOYLE
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In this cause the plaintiff, Kilner Mason, seeks to recover damages from the defendant, Phillip Doyle, for defamation. Although duly served with the statement of claim and although duly given notice of the listing of this matter for hearing on 17 February 2005, the defendant did not appear.

2 On that date the jury found that the plaintiff had established that the defendant published concerning the plaintiff the words “That’s fucking great – a rapist on council. Kilner Mason is a rapist and that is on crikey dot com.” The jury further found that the matter complained of conveyed two imputations:

(a) that the plaintiff was a rapist;

(b) that the plaintiff was unfit to serve on a local council.

3 The jury having made its findings, I proceeded to hear evidence, reserving my decision as to the assessment of damages referable to imputation (a).

4 The plaintiff was educated on the Blue Mountains, at Blue Mountains Grammar School, and has pursued a career in the advertising field and in film. Since 1985 he has been self employed, conducting the Mason Picture Co. For the past twenty years he has resided at Wentworth Falls. There was evidence before the Court that he had been involved in charitable work and that he has been a member of the Liberal Party for many years.

5 The plaintiff was selected by the Liberal Party as a candidate for a ward in the council elections held on 27…

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 Mason v Doyle

Details

AGLC: Mason v Doyle [2005] NSWSC 127
Case: [2005] NSWSC 127
Decision Date: 4 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mason v Doyle, Kilner Mason brought an action for defamation against Phillip Doyle, asserting that Doyle had publicly defamed him by calling him a rapist during a local council election. Doyle did not appear in court to defend himself, and the jury found that the defamatory words had been spoken and heard by multiple people. The defamatory imputations were that Mason was a rapist and unfit to serve on the council, though only the first was found to be defamatory. Studdert J, who presided over the case, found that the imputation that Mason was a rapist was false and deeply hurtful to him. Despite Mason losing the election, there was no evidence that the defamatory statement caused his defeat. The court considered the objectives of defamation damages as outlined in Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited, which include consolation, reparation, and vindication. Given the limited and temporary nature of the publication, Studdert J assessed the appropriate damages to be $50,000, plus interest, totaling $50,942.00. The court reserved the question of costs for later determination.

Orders