PREFUMO -v- BRADLEY [No 4] [2014] WASC 94

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 94
Case No:	CIV:1924/2010	Heard:	7 MARCH 2014
Coram:	MARTIN CJ	Delivered:	25/03/14
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LOUIS MARCEL ANGELO GILBERT PREFUMO ARRIADNE MARIE NOELLE BRADLEY
Catchwords:	Defamation Whether statements to mental health clinic communicated a defamatory meaning Whether defence of truth available Qualified privilege and notice Damages where ambit of publication narrow Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 30 Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 176 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 21
Case References:	Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37; (1998) 193 CLR 519 Gumina v Williams [No 1] (1990) 3 WAR 342 Gumina v Williams [No 2] (1990) 3 WAR 351 Home & McColough v Lees (1910) 11 CLR 361 Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000 Prefumo v Bradley [2011] WASC 251 Prefumo v Bradley [No 2] [2012] WASC 76 Prefumo v Bradley [No 3] [2013] WASC 56 Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1 Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309 Vollaire v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : PREFUMO -v- BRADLEY [No 4] [2014] WASC 94 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 7 MARCH 2014 DELIVERED : 25 MARCH 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 1924 of 2010 BETWEEN : LOUIS MARCEL ANGELO GILBERT PREFUMO

Plaintiff

AND

ARRIADNE MARIE NOELLE BRADLEY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Whether statements to mental health clinic communicated a defamatory meaning - Whether defence of truth available - Qualified privilege and notice - Damages where ambit of publication narrow - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 25, s 30

Mental Health Act 1996 (WA), s 176
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, O 20 r 21

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37; (1998) 193 CLR 519
Gumina v Williams [No 1] (1990) 3 WAR 342
Gumina v Williams [No 2] (1990) 3 WAR 351
Home & McColough v Lees (1910) 11 CLR 361
Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000
Prefumo v Bradley [2011] WASC 251
Prefumo v Bradley [No 2] [2012] WASC 76
Prefumo v Bradley [No 3] [2013] WASC 56
Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1
Taylor v Jecks (1993) 10 WAR 309
Vollaire v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59

MARTIN CJ

Summary

1 The plaintiff, Mr Louis Prefumo, claims damages for defamation as a result of statements made by the defendant, Ms Arriadne Bradley, who is Mr Prefumo's sister, in the course of telephone conversations with representatives of the Osborne Park Mental Health Clinic…

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 Prefumo v Bradley [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Prefumo v Bradley [No 4] [2014] WASC 94
Case: [2014] WASC 94
Decision Date: 25 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Prefumo sued Bradley for defamation, alleging statements made to a mental health clinic were defamatory. The court had to determine whether the statements communicated a defamatory meaning and if the defence of truth was available. Additionally, the court examined the defence of qualified privilege and notice, as well as the appropriate damages given the limited scope of publication.

The court found that the statements did not convey a defamatory meaning as they were not reasonably understood in that way. The court held that the defence of truth was applicable as the statements were substantially true. The defence of qualified privilege was also upheld as the statements were made to a relevant authority and there was a sufficient interest to warrant the communication. Given the narrow ambit of publication, the court awarded limited damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, holding that the statements were not defamatory and were protected by the defence of truth and qualified privilege. The limited scope of publication further supported the award of minimal damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

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.