Legal Research
Cases
Rowan v Cornwall and Ors No. SCGRG 90/1481 Judgment No. 6102 Number of Pages 3 Defamation (1997) 68 Sasr 253

Rowan v Cornwall and Ors No. SCGRG 90/1481 Judgment No. 6102 Number of Pages 3 Defamation (1997) 68 Sasr 253

Case [1997] SASC 6102 15 April 1997

Absolute Privilege

Qualified Privilege

Absolute Immunity

Stay of Proceedings

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DUGGAN J

Defamation - privilege - absolute privilege - application by defendants to stay proceedings pursuant to Wrongs Act, 1936s12(1) which attaches abosolute privilege to reports etc published by order of either House of Parliament - held that s12(1) does not apply to publication to a Minister of the Crown of reports commissioned by the Minsiter which are subsequently published by order of either House.

ADELAIDE, 15 April 1997 (hearing, decision)

#DATE 15:4:1997

#ADD 27:4:1997

Plaintiff Dawn Margaret Rowan:

Counsel: Mr J Swanson - Solicitors: James H Swanson

Defendant John R Cornwall:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Judith M Roberts:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Judith Blake:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Rosemary N Wighton:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant The Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

Counsel: Mr G Gretsas - Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

Defendant Christopher J Sumner:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Robyn King:

Counsel: Mr R Whitington QC with Mr G Gretsas - Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

Defendant Colleen Johnson:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Harrison Anderson:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant The State of South Australia:

Counsel: Ms M Panagiotidis - Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (SA)

Defendant Susan M Ryan:

Counsel: Mr R Whitington QC with Mr G Gretsas - Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

Defendant The Commonwealth of Australia:

Counsel: Mr R Whitington QC with Mr G Gretsas - Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

Defendant Television Broadcasters Ltd:

Solicitors: Fisher Jeffries

Order: Application dismissed.

DUGGAN J

1. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in this matter pleads various causes of action including libel. The libel is pleaded against some, but not all of the defendants and the present application is brought by the defendants in the libel action. The application is for a stay of proceedings of that action.

2. The plaintiff alleges that defamatory statements were made in a report prepared by a review committee which was established by the first defendant who was then the Minister for Community Welfare (the Minister) in the South Australian government. The plaintiff was the administrator and a member of the committee of management of the Christies Beach Women's Shelter Incorporated. The defendants seeking a stay of proceedings were all members of the committee with the exception of the ninth named defendant who was employed by the committee as an independent consultant and the twelfth named defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, which was the employer of one of the members of the committee. The committee's report dealt with the committee's findings in relation to allegations of mismanagement of the shelter.

3. According to the statement of claim the report was presented to the Minister on 26 June 1987. The action is based on the publication by the committee to the Minister. Subsequently the report was tabled in…

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 Rowan v Cornwall and Ors No. SCGRG 90/1481 Judgment No. 6102...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details

AGLC: Rowan v Cornwall and Ors No. SCGRG 90/1481 Judgment No. 6102 Number of Pages 3 Defamation (1997) 68 Sasr 253 [1997] SASC 6102
Case: [1997] SASC 6102
Decision Date: 15 April 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rowan v Cornwall and Others, the plaintiff, Dawn Margaret Rowan, brought a defamation action against various defendants, including members of a review committee established by the Minister for Community Welfare, the Commonwealth of Australia, and others. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory statements were made in a report prepared by the committee regarding allegations of mismanagement at Christies Beach Women's Shelter Incorporated, where the plaintiff was an administrator and committee member. The defendants sought a stay of the libel proceedings under section 12(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936, which attaches absolute privilege to reports published by order of either House of Parliament. The court had to determine whether this section applied to the publication of the report to the Minister before it was tabled in Parliament.

The legal issue before the court was whether section 12(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 provided absolute privilege to the initial publication of the report to the Minister for Community Welfare, or if the privilege only applied to the subsequent publication of the report by order of Parliament. The defendants argued that the privilege should extend to the initial publication to the Minister, while the plaintiff contended that the privilege was limited to parliamentary publications. The court considered the legislative history, purpose, and wording of section 12(1) to resolve this issue.

The court found that section 12(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 only applied to publications authorised by either House of Parliament, not to the initial publication to the Minister. The privilege attached to the occasion of publication, not the document, and the authorisation by Parliament could not confer absolute privilege retroactively. The court noted that while qualified privilege might apply to the initial publication to the Minister, it was not protected by section 12(1). The forwarding of the report to the Minister was a separate communication from the subsequent parliamentary publication, and therefore did not fall within the protection of the statute. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings in relation to the initial publication to the Minister.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.