Moit v Bristow

The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the plaintiff, Moit, against the defendant, Bristow. The dispute centred on imputations of dishonesty published by the defendant concerning the plaintiff. The appeal was heard by Beazley and McColl JJA, and Campbell AJA.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in rejecting the defendant's defences of justification and comment. Specifically, the court considered whether the finding that the imputation of dishonesty was not substantially true was erroneous, and whether the finding that the imputation was a statement of fact rather than comment was also erroneous. Further, the court had to assess whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the matter complained of was not published on an occasion of qualified privilege, and whether the rejection of the defence under s 13 of the Defamation Act, which argued the plaintiff was unlikely to suffer harm, was erroneous. Finally, the court considered whether the damages awarded under s 46A of the Defamation Act were excessive.

The appellate court found no error in the primary judge's findings. The court upheld the determination that the imputation of dishonesty was not substantially true, and that it constituted a statement of fact rather than comment. The conclusion that the publication did not occur on an occasion of qualified privilege was also affirmed, as was the rejection of the defence under s 13 of the Defamation Act. Consequently, the court found that the damages awarded were not excessive.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.