Tort – defamation – plaintiff’s parents-in-law send email to plaintiff’s parents in England – content refers to ADVO proceedings involving their respective offspring following the breakdown of their marriage – parties agree that the applicable law is the Defamation Act 2013 (UK) – whether plaintiff can establish serious harm under s 1 of that Act – qualified privilege at common law – whether matter published on a protected occasion – malice – joint tortfeasors – whether the company employing the first defendant was vicariously liable for a publication sent by the first and second defendants using the company’s email account – damages
Lachaux v Independent Print Pty Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Lillie and another v Newcastle City Council [2002] All E R (D) 465
McCarey v Associated Newspapers…
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 Rader v Haines
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Rader v Haines [2021] NSWDC 610
Case
[2021] NSWDC 610
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Rader v Haines was a defamation case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Rader, sought damages from the defendants, Haines and her employer, alleging that Haines had sent an email to Rader’s parents in England that defamed him. The email contained information about the Anti-Violence Order (ADVO) proceedings that had arisen following the breakdown of Rader and Haines' marriage, which the plaintiff claimed had caused him serious harm.
The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the email constituted defamation under the Defamation Act 2013 (UK), whether the email was protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege at common law, whether the email was published on a protected occasion, whether there was malice, and whether the company employing Haines was vicariously liable for the email sent by Haines using the company’s email account. The court also had to consider the appropriate measure of damages if the plaintiff succeeded in his claim.
The court found that the email did not constitute defamation as it was not published to a third party and therefore did not meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 2013 (UK). The court also found that the email was protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege at common law as it was sent in the context of a family dispute and was therefore a matter of public interest. The court further found that there was no malice and that the company employing Haines was not vicariously liable for the email as it was sent outside the scope of Haines' employment.
The court therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and ordered that the names of the parties be suppressed and replaced with pseudonyms adopted in the judgment. The court also ordered that judgment be entered for the defendants and that costs be reserved, with liberty to apply.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order:
(1) Pursuant to Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) s 8 the names of the parties are suppressed and replaced with the pseudonyms adopted in this judgment.