Legal Research
Cases
Norris v Gittos

Norris v Gittos

Case [2011] WASC 295 26 October 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NORRIS -v- GITTOS [2011] WASC 295

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASC 295
Published:	26/10/2011
Case No:	CIV:2228/2011	Heard:	23 SEPTEMBER 2011
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	23/09/11
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHANIE AMANDA NORRIS LINDA GITTOS SIMONE CLAASSEN
Catchwords:	Defamation Absolute privilege Negligence Duty of care Defendants' summary judgment
Legislation:	Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA) Defamation Act 2005 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16
Case References:	Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552 Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61–424 Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : NORRIS -v- GITTOS [2011] WASC 295 CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : 23 SEPTEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 2011 PUBLISHED : 26 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 2228 of 2011 BETWEEN : STEPHANIE AMANDA NORRIS

Plaintiff

AND

LINDA GITTOS

First Defendant

SIMONE CLAASSEN

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Absolute privilege - Negligence - Duty of care - Defendants' summary judgment

Legislation:

Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA)

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16

(Page 2)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In Person

First Defendant : Ms K A T Pederson

Second Defendant : Ms K A T Pederson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

First Defendant : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Second Defendant : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61–424
Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237
Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317

(Page 3)

KENNETH MARTIN J

The defendants' applications

1 These are my reserved reasons for the decision I announced on 23 September 2011 at the conclusion of oral argument. At the time I granted the defendants' application for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's action.

2 This is a defamation action in my CMC List. The plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. She commenced her action on 11 July 2011 against the defendants, who are employees of the Department of Child Protection.

3 By chamber summons dated 22 September 2011, the defendants applied for summary judgment under O 16 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules…

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 Norris v Gittos

Details

AGLC: Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295
Case: [2011] WASC 295
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norris v Gittos involved a dispute concerning allegations of defamation. The plaintiff, Norris, sought damages from the defendants, Gittos, for defamatory statements made during a meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The crux of the case revolved around whether the defendants' statements, which they claimed were made under absolute privilege, were indeed protected and whether the plaintiff could establish negligence on the part of the defendants.

The court was tasked with determining whether the statements made by the defendants during the meeting were protected by absolute privilege, a doctrine that shields certain communications from defamation claims. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff could demonstrate that the defendants breached a duty of care in making the allegedly defamatory statements. The defendants applied for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the necessary elements of a defamation claim against them.

The court found that the statements made by the defendants during the meeting were indeed protected by absolute privilege, as they were made in a parliamentary or quasi-parliamentary context. The court held that the defendants' statements were made in the course of a meeting of an organisation that had a significant public interest component, and thus, the absolute privilege applied. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the defendants breached any duty of care in making the statements. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' application for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295

Most Recent Citation

Cunliffe v Woods [2012] VSC 254

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

Akbari v State of Queensland
[2021] QDC 87

…2013] QCA 36 Murphy v Lewis [2009] QDC 37 Noonan v MacLennan & Anor [2010] 2 Qd R 537 Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295 Nyoni v Pharmacy Board of Australia (No 6 ) [2018] FCA 526 Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 403 Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175 Spedding v Dailymail.c…
Morris v St Vincent's Health Australia Ltd
[2020] VSC 690 Para 1

…Sellwood [2009] NSWSC 1335, [44]–[47]; Walker v Veda Advantage Information Services and Anor [2011] QSC 316, [15]–[19]; Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295, [46]–[51]; Kostov v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 1) [2018] NSWSC 1822, [51]–[54].…
Goodacre v Department of Child Protection
[2018] WADC 83

…tin [2012] WASC 338 Kimberley Downs v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6114, 25 August 1986) Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23 Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295 SEB Trygg Liv Holding AB v Manches [2006] 1 All ER 437 Tame v State of New South Wales [2002] HCA 35 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (Rothw…
Thompson v Department of Child Protection of Western Australia
[2018] WADC 31 Para 6

…e common law position in relation to the publication of defamatory material on an occasion of privilege was summarised by Martin J in Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295 [27] ‑ [30]. In his judgment, his Honour quoted the editors of Gatley on Libel and Slander (11 th ed, 2008) at [13.1] where they explained the law of…
Tull v Wolfe
[2016] WASC 65

…ommonwealth [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1 Mann v O'Neill [1997] HCA 28; (1997) 191 CLR 204 McJannett v Daley [No 2] [2012] WASC 386 Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295 Tull v Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 1483 (U2014/15405) Tull v Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3319 (U2014/15405) Tull v Al…
MJL v The State of Western Australia
[2015] WASC 348

…h of Australia [2012] QCA 92; (2012) 261 FLR 396 Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23; (1994) 121 ALR 148 Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94 Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295 Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel [1995] HCA 65; (1995) 185 CLR 307 Pyrenees Shire Council v Day [1998] HCA 3; (1998) 192 CLR 330 Renowden v M…
Cunliffe v Woods
[2012] VSC 254 Para 1

…protected, because otherwise honest witnesses would potentially be vulnerable to baseless litigation”). See additionally Norris v Gittos [2011] WASC 295.…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Prefumo v Sutton
[2011] WASC 151

…ty Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317…
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
[2006] HCA 27

…) 201 CLR 552 Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61–424 Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v M…
Tame v New South Wales
[2002] HCA 35

…Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317…
Sullivan v Moody
[2001] HCA 59

…226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317…
Agar v Hyde
[2000] HCA 41

…Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552 Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61–424 Batistatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sut…
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd
[1983] HCA 25

…istatos v Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317…
[1892] 1 QB 431
[1892] 1 QB 431

…r spoken maliciously, without any justification or excuse, and from personal ill will or anger against the party defamed': Royal Aquarium v Parkinson [1892] 1 QB 431 CA at (451) (Lopes LJ) It is immaterial whether such proceedings take place in open court or in private, whether they are of a final or preliminary c…
[1962] 1 QB 237
[1962] 1 QB 237

…of NSW; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 QB 237 Prefumo v Sutton [2011] WASC 151 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Tame v New South Wales (2002) 211 CLR 317…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA)
1 mention
Defamation Act 2005 (TAS)
1 mention