Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Glossop - [2006] NSWSC 1201

CITATION: Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Graeme Francis Glossop & 5 ors; Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Fairfax Community Newspapers Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1201

HEARING DATE(S): 13.12.05, 02.05.06, 03.05.06: final written submissions 15.09.06

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: Para 101

CATCHWORDS: STATUTES – statutory construction – section 8A Defamation Act 1974 – meaning of “employs” and “persons” in subs (3)(a) – whether “persons” means only “employees at common law” – whether plaintiff has cause of action for defamation. CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – whether plaintiff and its staff intended a contractual relationship – whether plaintiff employed its staff under contracts of employment at common law

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005, s 9, s 46
Defamation Act 1974, s 8A
Defamation Amendment Act 2002, Sch 1, s 8A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 28.2

CASES CITED: Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v K S Easter Holdings Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Babsari Pty Ltd v Douglas Chee Yin Wong & Ors [1999] QSC 326
Boylan Nominees Pty Limited v Sweeney [2005] NSWCA 8
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358
Dietrich v Dare (1980) 54 ALJR 388
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community (2002) 209 CLR 95
Fraser v Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (2001) 198 DLR (4th) 569
Hollis v Vabu Pry Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21
Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine (2004) 218 CLR 273
Placer Development Limited v The Commonwealth (1969) 121 CLR 353
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
Teen Ranch Pty Ltd v Brown (1995) 87 IR 308
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191

PARTIES: 20074/05
Redeemer Baptist School - plaintiff
Graeme Francis Glossop – first defendant
Graham Merrick – second defendant
Shirley May Gregory – third defendant
Percy Kerrison – fourth defendant
Andrew Thomas Frost – fifth defendant
Dean Gregory – sixth defendant
20077/05
Redeemer Baptist School - plaintiff
Fairfax Community Newspapers - defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20074/05; 20077/05

COUNSEL: 20074/05
J P Phillips SC/M Lynch/T Dixon – plaintiff
K Smark – defendants
20077/05
J P Phillips SC/M Lynch/T Dixon – plaintiff
J N West QC/ R P L Lancaster - defendant

SOLICITORS: 20074/05
Glasheen & Quilty - plaintiff
Champion Legal – defendants
20077/05
Glasheen & Quilty - plaintiff
Freehills - defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Nicholas J

16 November 2006

20074/05 Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Graeme Francis Glossop & 5 ors
20077/05 Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Fairfax Community Newspapers Pty Ltd

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: In proceedings no. 20074/05 the plaintiff claims damages against the defendants arising out of the publication on 18 March 2005 of copies of a press release under the heading “Redeemer Baptist School (watch the real story)”, and of copies of a newspaper article under the heading “Church Shock”.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Redeemer Baptist School Ltd v Glossop and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 1201
Decision Date: 16 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Redeemer Baptist School Ltd and Glossop were involved in a legal dispute that reached the court. The plaintiff, Redeemer Baptist School Ltd, sought to establish a cause of action for defamation against the defendant, Glossop. The crux of the case was the interpretation of section 8A of the Defamation Act 1974, specifically the terms "employs" and "persons" as they appear in subsection (3)(a). The plaintiff argued that the term "persons" included not only employees at common law but also other individuals associated with the school. Redeemer Baptist School Ltd contended that this broader interpretation allowed it to pursue a defamation claim against Glossop. The defendant, Glossop, maintained that the term "persons" should be narrowly construed to include only those who are employees at common law, thereby limiting Redeemer Baptist School Ltd's ability to claim defamation.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were the precise meanings of "employs" and "persons" in the context of section 8A of the Defamation Act 1974. The court had to determine whether "persons" should be interpreted to mean only those who are employees at common law or if it could include other individuals associated with the school. Additionally, the court needed to examine the contractual relationship between Redeemer Baptist School Ltd and its staff to ascertain whether they were employed under contracts of employment at common law. These determinations were crucial in deciding whether Redeemer Baptist School Ltd had a valid cause of action for defamation against Glossop.

The court examined the statutory language and legislative intent behind section 8A of the Defamation Act 1974. It found that the term "persons" should not be limited to employees at common law but should be interpreted to include other individuals associated with the school. This broader interpretation was supported by the context in which the statute was enacted and its purpose to protect individuals from defamatory statements. Furthermore, the court held that Redeemer Baptist School Ltd did not intend to establish a contractual relationship with its staff under common law employment contracts. Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that Redeemer Baptist School Ltd had a cause of action for defamation against Glossop. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive understanding of statutory construction and the specific terms within the Defamation Act 1974.

Orders