Raynor v Murray

Case [2019] NSWDC 189

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Raynor v Murray [2019] NSWDC 189
Hearing dates: 6, 7 and 8 February 2019
Date of orders: 17 May 2019
Decision date: 17 May 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $120,000.
(2) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.
(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords: TORT – defamation – email to residents of strata building – defences under ss 25, 31 and 33 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) – defence of qualified privilege at common law – reply to attack – malice – damages – whether aggravated damages should be awarded – mitigation of damages – award of $120,000
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 31, 33, 34 and 35
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 48 and 79
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726
Alexander v Clegg [2004] 3 NZLR 586 at 602
Assaf v Skalkos [2000] NSWSC 418
Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride (2001) 53 NSWLR 430
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Obeid [2006] NSWCA 231
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366
Bass v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 118
Bauer Media Pty Ltd v Wilson (No 2) [2018] VSCA 154
Blackwell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWHC 3098
Bowden v KSMC Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Hubba Bubba Childcare on Haig & Chapman [2019] NSWDC 98
Brooks v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1331
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 579
Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1091
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Cerutti v Crestside Pty Ltd [2016] 1 Qd R 89
Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed (2010) 278 ALR 232
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Cole v Operative Plasterers Federation of Australia (NSW Branch) (1927) 28 SR (NSW) 62
Coxon v Wilson [2016] WASCA 48
Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 211
Cripps v Vakras [2015] VSC 193
Davis v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 693
Eardley v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1374
Echo Publications Pty Ltd v Tucker [2007] NSWCA 73
Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd v Kazal [2017] NSWCA 77
Feldman v Polaris Media Pty Ltd as trustee of The Polaris Media Trust trading as The Australian Jewish News (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1035
Field v Local Sunday Newspapers (North) Ltd [2002] EWHC 336
Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (2015) 89 NSWLR 538
Gayle v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2); Gayle v The Age Company Pty Ltd (No 2); Gayle v The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1838
Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd…

Continue reading Raynor v Murray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Raynor v Murray [2019] NSWDC 189
Case
[2019] NSWDC 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raynor v Murray involved a dispute concerning defamatory statements made via an email to the residents of a strata building. The plaintiff, Raynor, sought damages for the defamation allegedly caused by the defendant, Murray. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included whether the statements were defamatory, if the defences under sections 25, 31, and 33 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) were applicable, and if the common law defence of qualified privilege was available. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there was malice on the part of the defendant, whether aggravated damages were appropriate, and the extent to which damages could be mitigated.

The court found that the email contained defamatory content. It rejected the defences under the Defamation Act and determined that the common law defence of qualified privilege did not apply. The court also found that the defendant acted with malice. In considering aggravated damages, the court found that they were warranted due to the nature and circumstances of the defamation. The court awarded $120,000 in damages, taking into account the need for mitigation. The court's judgment concluded with an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff $120,000, with liberty to apply for interest and costs, and for the exhibits to be retained until further order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $120,000.

(2) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.

(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

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.