Rajski v Bainton (No 1)

In *Rajski v Bainton (No 1)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Rajski, and the defendant, Mr. Bainton. The case concerned allegations of defamation arising from statements made by the defendant concerning the plaintiff's professional conduct as a solicitor.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the defendant in relation to the defamatory statements published. This involved determining whether the defendant had a legal, social, or moral duty to make the statements, and whether the recipients of those statements had a corresponding interest in receiving them. The Court also had to consider whether the privilege, if it existed, had been defeated by malice on the part of the defendant.

The Court of Appeal, applying established principles of defamation law, found that the defence of qualified privilege was not made out. It reasoned that while there might have been a limited interest in the recipient receiving the information, the defendant’s duty or interest in publishing the statements was not sufficiently established in the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the defendant had acted with malice, which vitiated any potential qualified privilege. The Court found that the defendant’s statements were made with a dominant improper purpose, namely to injure the plaintiff’s reputation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of defamation and dismissed the defendant's appeal. The orders of the lower court, including damages awarded to the plaintiff, were affirmed.