Webb v Bloch Lang v Willis Howe v Lees Telegraph Newspapers Co Ltd v Bedford Penton v Calwell Wright v Australian Broadcasting Commission Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd R v Kylsant Horrocks v Lowe
DECISION:
See para 295
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
KIRBY J
Friday 12 March 1999
020523/94 - EDWARD PALMER v FRANK BELAN 020524/94 - EDWARD PALMER v FRANK BELAN & ANOR 020115/95 - DENIS BONER v FRANK BELAN & ANOR
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The Litigation 1 Three actions for Defamation were commenced as the result of the publication of a letter (Ex B), and a leaflet (Ex C) in the course of a union election. The union was the National Union of Workers, and the publication was said to have taken place in July 1994. 2 The three actions were heard together, without a jury. The parties to the actions were as follows: · Edward Palmer v Frank Belan · Edward Palmer v Frank Belan and Arthur Benjamin Casey · Denis Boner v Frank Belan and Arthur Benjamin Casey 3 The first action is concerned with the letter signed by Mr Belan (Ex B). The second and third actions are concerned with a leaflet which accompanied that letter (Ex C). 4 Mr Edward Palmer was, at one time, the Secretary of the Federated Millers and Manufacturing Grocers Employees’ Association of Australasia, New South Wales Branch (“the Millers’ Union”). Mr Denis Boner was the Assistant Secretary of the same union. In 1992, in circumstances which will shortly be described, the Millers’ Union amalgamated with a number of other unions to form the National Union of Workers. A party to the amalgamation, and the most significant union in the proposed conglomerate, was the Federated Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch (“the Storemen and Packers’ Union”). Mr Frank Belan was the State Secretary of that union. Upon amalgamation he became the State Secretary of the amalgamated union, the National Union of Workers. 5 The National Union of Workers was divided into Divisions, one being known as the Food 1 Division. Former members of the Millers’ Union became members of the Food 1 Division. Upon amalgamation, Mr Palmer was made the Secretary of that Division. Mr Boner, his former assistant, was made an Organiser. 6 The National Union of Workers held an election in August 1994, as required by the Rules. Mr…
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 Palmer v Belan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Palmer v Belan [1999] NSWSC 187
Case
[1999] NSWSC 187
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Palmer v Belan involved a dispute between Mr Palmer and the respondent, Belan, over defamatory statements made in the context of a union election. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Palmer sought to establish that the respondent's comments were defamatory and that they were made with malice and without any justification or qualified privilege.
The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the nature of the allegedly defamatory comments, whether they were indeed defamatory, and if the respondent had any defences available to them, such as qualified privilege or absence of malice. The court also had to consider the relevance of the union election context to the respondent's defence.
The court found that the comments made by Belan were indeed defamatory, as they had the potential to lower Mr Palmer's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the comments were made with qualified privilege, as there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent had a duty or interest in making the comments. The court also found that the comments were made with malice, as there was no genuine attempt to reply to an attack or to protect any legitimate interest. As a result, the court ruled in favour of Mr Palmer.
The court ordered Belan to pay damages to Mr Palmer for the defamatory comments made and also awarded costs to Mr Palmer. The court further noted that the union election context did not provide any additional defences to Belan and did not mitigate the defamatory nature of the comments.