P and W v MANNY and Anor [2010] ACTSC 50 (11 June 2010)
CAUSE OF ACTION – cause of action against the company – whether indiscriminate use of company letterhead by the sole director advances the affairs of the company – claim dismissed
DEFAMATION – absolute privilege – qualified privilege at common law – judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings – complaint to prosecuting authority – defence of triviality
SLANDER – oral defamatory statement – malice in oral publication – qualified privilege at common law – statutory qualified privilege – defence of triviality
EVIDENCE – publication – prohibition of publication of the plaintiffs’ names – prohibition of publication of evidence given in the hearing that might identify the plaintiffs – s 91 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991(ACT) – “necessary to prevent prejudice” – s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1974 (Cth)
CONTEMPT – contempt of court – implied undertaking that documents produced under subpoena not be used for a collateral purpose – first plaintiff used document so obtained in these proceedings – ex parte application made to purge contempt – magistrate granted leave for the first plaintiff to use document in these proceedings – first defendant’s application to dismiss the proceedings for abuse of process – whether orders of the magistrate should be set aside – whether implied undertaking binds only litigant personally - whether “special circumstances” exist that affords a reason for modifying or releasing the undertaking
DAMAGES – compensation for personal distress and hurt and vindication – aggravated damages – no casual link between defamation and economic loss – assessment of damages
[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 P v Manny
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
P v Manny [2010] ACTSC 50
Case
[2010] ACTSC 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of P v Manny involved the plaintiffs suing the defendants for defamation, and other related claims. The plaintiffs alleged that defamatory statements were made about them by the defendants, causing them personal distress and hurt. The second defendant was also accused of using a document obtained under subpoena for a collateral purpose, in violation of an implied undertaking. The first plaintiff sought compensation for personal distress, hurt, and vindication, as well as aggravated damages. The second plaintiff sought damages for defamation and breach of statutory duty.
The legal issues in the case included whether the use of company letterhead by the sole director advanced the company's affairs, whether the defendants' statements were privileged, and whether the implied undertaking bound only the litigant personally or also the plaintiffs' legal representatives. The court also had to consider whether special circumstances existed that would allow for the modification or release of the implied undertaking. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate amount of damages to award to the plaintiffs.
The court held that the use of the company letterhead by the sole director did not advance the company's affairs, and therefore the company could not be held liable for the defamatory statements. The court also found that the defendants' statements were protected by absolute and qualified privilege, and therefore could not be the basis for a defamation claim. The court held that the implied undertaking bound only the litigant personally, and not the plaintiffs' legal representatives. The court found that special circumstances did not exist that would allow for the modification or release of the implied undertaking. The court awarded damages to the second plaintiff in the amount of $22,200.00 for the first matter complained of, and $4,000.00 for the second matter complained of.
The court also held that the plaintiffs' claims against the second defendant should be dismissed, and that leave should be granted to the plaintiffs to use the letter addressed to the Superintendent Belconnen police station in these proceedings. The court set aside the leave given by the magistrate to use the letter, and granted leave to the plaintiffs to use the letter in these proceedings. The court dismissed the first defendant's application to dismiss the proceedings for abuse of process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Pursuant to s 270 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) proceedings concerning leave given by Magistrate Madden on 13 March 2008 to use a letter addressed to “Superintendent Belconnen police station, Australian federal police” dated 9 November 2004 (the letter) be removed to this Court.
2.
Pursuant to Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) r 1613, leave given by Magistrate Madden on 13 March 2008 in respect of the letter be set aside.
3.
Leave be granted to the plaintiffs to use the letter addressed to “Superintendent Belconnen police station, Australian federal police” dated 9 November 2004 in these proceedings.
4.
The plaintiffs’ claim against the second defendant be dismissed.
5.
There be judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant in respect of the first matter complained of in the sum of $22,200.00.
6.
There be judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant in respect of the second matter complained of in the sum of $4,000.00.