Legal Research
Cases
Ritson v Burns

Ritson v Burns

Case [2014] NSWSC 272 20 March 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ritson v Burns [2014] NSWSC 272
Hearing dates: 7 August 2013
Decision date: 20 March 2014
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500

Catchwords: DEFAMATION - damages - publication to one person - considerable hurt to feelings
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Cassell & Co v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Crampton v Nugawela [1996] NSWSC 651; (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
The Herald And Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor [1928] HCA 36; [1929] VLR 215; (1928) 41 CLR 254
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419
Ritson v Gay & Lesbian Community Publishing Limited [2012] NSWSC 483
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; (2003) 216 CLR 327
Triggell v Pheeney [1951] HCA 23; (1951) 82 CLR 497
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brendan Ritson (plaintiff)
Gary Burns (second defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
W R Potter (plaintiff)
No appearance for the second defendant
Solicitors:
Mitchell Lawyers (plaintiff)
No appearance for the second defendant

File Number(s): 2011/417650
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an action for defamation brought by Mr Brendan Ritson against Mr Gary Burns in respect of a single comment made by Mr Burns to a third person. Mr Ritson is a former policeman. In his pleadings, he describes Mr Burns as "a self proclaimed 'gay rights activist'".

Mr Burns has taken no part in the proceedings. As a result, default judgment was entered against him by the Registrar on 1 February 2013 for damages to be assessed. This judgment assesses those damages.

Circumstances in which the claim is brought

Mr Ritson's pursuit of a claim in this Court in respect of a single comment made to one person warrants some explanation.

The claim against Mr Burns is the only remaining part of proceedings brought by Mr Ritson against a number of defendants in respect of several defamatory publications. Some of those claims were settled by agreement. Others were struck out by Beech-Jones J: see Ritson v Gay & Lesbian Community Publishing Limited [2012] NSWSC 483. The present claim was added by leave granted by his Honour in that judgment (at [73] and order 2(ii) of the judgment).

Mr Ritson was a police officer with the New South Wales Police Force. As at 24 September 2006, he was stationed at Surry Hills Police Station. An allegation was made that he and another police officer provided confidential information to a person in custody at that police station to the effect that the person's partner was transgender. Mr Ritson was charged with an offence under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 on the basis of that allegation.

On 7 April 2009,…

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 Ritson v Burns

Details

AGLC: Ritson v Burns [2014] NSWSC 272
Case: [2014] NSWSC 272
Decision Date: 20 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ritson v Burns was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Ritson, sought damages for defamation caused by statements made by the defendant, Burns, to a third party. The statements were considered to have caused significant emotional distress to Ritson. The court had to determine the appropriate level of damages to be awarded to Ritson, considering the nature and impact of the defamatory statements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defamatory statements were indeed published to the third party and whether these statements caused considerable hurt to Ritson's feelings. The court needed to evaluate the extent of the emotional harm suffered by Ritson due to the defamatory content and whether it warranted a substantial damages award. The court also had to consider the principles governing defamation claims and the appropriate measure of damages in such cases.

The court found that the defamatory statements were indeed communicated to the third party and that these statements had caused considerable hurt to Ritson's feelings. In assessing the damages, the court emphasised the significant emotional distress experienced by Ritson as a direct result of the defamatory content. The court awarded Ritson damages reflecting the severity of the emotional harm suffered, taking into account the nature and impact of the defamatory statements. The court concluded that the emotional distress caused warranted a substantial award to compensate Ritson for the considerable hurt to his feelings.

The final orders of the court included an award of damages to Ritson for the considerable hurt to his feelings caused by the defamatory statements made by Burns. The precise amount of the damages was determined based on the emotional harm suffered and the principles of defamation law applicable to the case.

Orders