P101 v Cambridge University Press - [2015] NSWSC 1005

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: P101 v Cambridge University Press [2015] NSWSC 1005
Hearing dates: 19 June 2015
Date of orders: 10 July 2015
Decision date: 10 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: DEFAMATION – procedure – summary dismissal – whether matter complained of reasonably capable of defaming the plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: P101 (Plaintiff)
Cambridge University Press (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff in person
M Richardson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff self-represented
Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/109136
Publication restriction: The plaintiff in the proceedings is to be referred to as P101.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The plaintiff in these proceedings is to be referred to as P101.
P101 was involved in family law proceedings with his ex-wife. Allegations were made against him in those proceedings which were ultimately found to be not substantiated. Since that time, the plaintiff has fought long and hard to remove the taint of the allegations. The present case highlights the paradox of a person in that position having to pursue his entitlement to vindicate his reputation by airing the allegations that have tarnished it in a system of justice the very hallmark of which is transparency.
The proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were concluded in 1995. The judge who determined the proceedings was not satisfied that the allegations against P101 were substantiated. In 1997, a judge of the Court expressed the opinion that it was “totally inappropriate to leave on any departmental data base or file any record asserting as fact any matter which would be at variance with the Court's finding” about that matter. The judge raised a question as to the integrity of the government department which evidently had maintained such a record.
Still, the allegations remained on records of the relevant department. The plaintiff persisted in his attempts to have any record of the allegations removed. Ultimately, he brought proceedings for defamation in the Small Claims Tribunal of the relevant jurisdiction and in 2001 was awarded an amount of $2,000. The plaintiff then brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of the same jurisdiction. That court made a declaration in terms in effect determining finally that the allegations were false.
The present action arises from the publication of a book which includes reference to the published decision in the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff claims he has been defamed by the book by its repetition of the matters aired in those proceedings.
The statement of claim was filed on 4 April 2015. In response to objections to the form of that pleading taken by the defendant, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 7 May 2015. The defendant publisher maintains its objection to that pleading.
At the first listing of the proceedings in accordance with the Practice Note SC CL 4, the defendant raised particular objections to the form of the statement of claim but also…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read P101 v Cambridge University Press and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 1005
Decision Date: 10 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of P101 v Cambridge University Press was before the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, P101, sought to proceed with a defamation claim against the defendant, Cambridge University Press. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant published defamatory material about them in a book published in Australia. The defendant applied to have the case summarily dismissed, arguing that the alleged defamatory material was not reasonably capable of defaming the plaintiff. The court was required to determine whether the alleged defamatory material was capable of conveying a meaning that was defamatory of the plaintiff.

In assessing the defendant's application, the court considered the content of the alleged defamatory material and the circumstances in which it was published. The court noted that the alleged defamatory material was not directed specifically at the plaintiff, but rather was part of a general discussion on a particular topic. The court also considered the meaning that a reasonable person would ascribe to the alleged defamatory material, and whether that meaning was defamatory of the plaintiff. The court held that the alleged defamatory material was not reasonably capable of defaming the plaintiff, as it did not convey a meaning that was defamatory of the plaintiff.

As a result of the court's determination, the defendant's application for summary dismissal was granted, and the plaintiff's defamation claim was dismissed. The court held that the alleged defamatory material was not reasonably capable of conveying a meaning that was defamatory of the plaintiff, and therefore could not form the basis of a defamation claim. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders