JAMES JOSEPH O'NEILL v. ARNOLD MANN
No. ACTG15 of 1994
FED No. 207/94
Number of pages - 15
Defamation
(1994) 49 FCR 370
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
HEEREY J
CATCHWORDS
Defamation - absolute privilege - letter of complaint to Attorney-General concerning ACT special magistrate - special magistrate holding office during pleasure of Governor-General - whether requirement of a hearing before termination - whether letter of complaint attracts absolute privilege.
Federal Court Rules 0.29 Div 1; O.20 r.2
Magistrates Court Ordinance 1930 (ACT), ss.5(1), 6A, 7, 10, 10A, 10D, 10H, 10J, 10K, 10L
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 179 CLR 1
Chen Zhen Zi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Federal Court, Full Court, 25 March 1994)
Dawkins v Lord Rokeby (1873) LR 8 OB 255
Dawkins v Lord Rokeby (1875) LR 7 HL 744
Douglass v Lewis (1982) 30 SASR 50
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487
Hercules v Phease (Supreme Court of Victoria, Appeal Division, 17 December 1993)
Jamieson v R (1993) 116 ALR 193
Royal Aquarium Summer and Winter Garden Society Limited v Parkinson (1892) 1 QB 431
R v Skinner (1772) Lofft 54, 98 ER 529
HEARING
CANBERRA, 8 April 1994
#DATE 21:4:1994, ADELAIDE
Counsel for the plaintiff: D Rofe QC with B Hull
Solicitor for the plaintiff: Phillips Fox
The defendant appeared in person
ORDER
The Court Orders:
1. Judgement for the defendant.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs including reserved costs.
3. The orders for the filing and service of further pleadings made on 8 April 1994 are vacated.
4. The hearing date fixed for 27 June 1994 is vacated.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
JUDGE1
HEEREY J The plaintiff was a special magistrate in the Australian Capital Territory. On 20 October 1988 the defendant wrote to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth a letter complaining about the performance and capacity of the plaintiff and sent a copy of the letter to the Chief Magistrate of the Territory. On 3 January 1989 the defendant sent a letter on the same theme to the Minister for Justice. In answer to the plaintiff's action for defamation the defendant has pleaded the defence of absolute privilege.
The question raised by this plea has, by consent of the parties, been tried separately under Order 29 Division 1 of the Federal…
Continue reading O'Neill, JJ. v Mann, A
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Neill, JJ. v. Mann, A. [1994] FCA 207 ((1994) 49 FCR 370)
- Case
- [1994] FCA 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the letter of complaint was protected by absolute privilege and, if so, whether the special magistrate was required to hold a hearing before termination of their office. The court needed to determine whether the communication was made to a person in a public or quasi-judicial capacity, and whether the subject matter of the communication related to the performance of their official duties. The court also needed to consider whether the communication was made for the purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of the public official.
The court held that the letter of complaint to the Attorney-General was protected by absolute privilege. It found that the special magistrate was a public official, and the subject matter of the letter was related to their official duties. The court held that the communication was made for the purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of the public official, and therefore the letter was protected by absolute privilege. The court also found that the special magistrate was not required to hold a hearing before termination of their office.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action and ordered that the defendant pay their costs. The court also vacated the orders for the filing and service of further pleadings and the hearing date. The final orders of the court included judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs, and the vacation of certain procedural orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court Orders:
1. Judgement for the defendant.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs including reserved costs.
3. The orders for the filing and service of further pleadings made on 8 April 1994 are vacated.
4. The hearing date fixed for 27 June 1994 is vacated.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
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.