Pintegne v Woods

Case [2010] NSWDC 44
CITATION: Pintegne v Woods [2010] NSWDC 44
HEARING DATE(S): 15 - 17 December 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
26 February 2010
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Puckeridge QC DCJ
DECISION: (1) Judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500 plus interest at 2% for the period between 25 May 2007 to 26 February 10 in the amount of $668.50 for a total of $13,168.50.
(2) Defendant to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of senior counsel.
CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation - common law qualified privilege - tests for common law qualified privilege
LEGISLATION CITED: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 (NSW)
Residential Tenancy Act 1987 (NSW), s 25
CASES CITED: Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2009] NSWCA 9
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; (2004) 204 ALR 193; (2004) 78 ALJR 346; (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-727; [2004] HCA 5
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 470
Bennette v Cohen [2009] NSWCA 60
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; (1993) 113 ALR 577; (1993) 67 ALJR 634; (1993) Aust Torts Reports 81-227; [1993] HCA 31
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC 1027; [1972] 1 All ER 801; [1972] 2 WLR 645
Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102; (1947) 53 ALR (CN) 617b; (1947) 21 ALJR 71b; (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 394; (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 117
Papaconstuntinos v Holmes à Court [2009] NSWSC 903
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-946; [2008] NSWCA 66
Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; (2002) 194 ALR 161; (2002) 77 ALJR 292; (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-683; [2002] HCA 57
Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford (1934) 50 CLR 632; (1934) 8 ALJR 67
Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497; [1951] ALR 453; (1951) 25 ALJR 96; (1951) 51 SR (NSW) 173; (1951) 68 WN (NSW) 187a
PARTIES: Plaintiff: Christopher Pintegne
Defendant: Annette June Woods
FILE NUMBER(S): 5347 of 2008
COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Mr K Smark SC / Mr P Coady
Defendant: Mr R Potter
SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Brydens Compensation Lawyers
Defendant: Ghobrial Legal

JUDGMENT


[1] The plaintiff brings an action for defamation against the defendant in respect of a letter dated the 25 May 2007 addressed to the Base Commander of the RAAF Base Richmond NSW. The plaintiff in May of 2007 was a pilot officer attached to the RAAF Base at Richmond.

[2] The letter is Schedule A to the Statement of Claim, and exhibit B in the proceedings .The defendant disputes that the imputations claimed to arise from the publication are defamatory and also claims that if the imputations are found to be defamatory the matter complained of was published under qualified privilege.

BACKGROUND TO THE PUBLICATION

[3] The plaintiff when he first went to the base at Richmond became a tenant of the defendant. A lease dated 7 April 2006…

Continue reading Pintegne v Woods

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pintegne v Woods [2010] NSWDC 44
Case
[2010] NSWDC 44
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pintegne v Woods involved a dispute over defamatory statements made by the defendant, Woods, against the plaintiff, Pintegne. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought damages for defamation, alleging that the defendant had made false and defamatory statements about her professional competence and integrity. The central issue in the case was whether the defendant had a defence of common law qualified privilege for the statements made.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances under which the defendant made the statements to a third party qualified for the defence of common law privilege. This required an analysis of the tests for establishing such a privilege, which includes whether there was a duty or interest that required or justified the communication, and whether the communication was made without malice. The court had to consider the context in which the statements were made, the relationship between the parties, and the nature of the information shared.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant had not established the defence of common law qualified privilege. The court held that the defendant had failed to demonstrate a sufficient duty or interest that necessitated the communication of the defamatory statements. Additionally, the court found that the defendant acted with malice in making the statements. As a result, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the sum of $12,500 plus interest and costs. The defendant was also ordered to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of senior counsel.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $12,500 plus interest at 2% for the period between 25 May 2007 to 26 February 10 in the amount of $668.50 for a total of $13,168.50.

(2) Defendant to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of senior counsel.

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.