Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v Premachandran

Ryan v Premachandran

Case [2009] NSWSC 1186 6 November 2009

Assessment of Damages

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Ryan v Premachandran [2009] NSWSC 1186

HEARING DATE(S): 20.07.09, 21.07.09, 22.07.09, 23.07.09

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J

DECISION: par 143

CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – trial by judge alone on all issues – email sent to plaintiff and 14 recipients – defences – justification – whether imputations that the plaintiff was incompetent, dishonest, untrustworthy, and responsible for the school’s low education standard were true – common law qualified privilege – information volunteered – whether reciprocity of interest established – whether occasion of qualified privilege – malice – whether publication actuated by improper motive – fair comment and honest opinion – whether the words were comment or statements of fact – whether aggravated damages – assessment of damages

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027
Crampton v Nugawela (1996) 41 NSWLR 176
Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36
Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384
Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69; (2001) 208 CLR 388
Papaconstuntinos v Holmes á Court [2009] NSWSC 903
Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb [1982] HCA 4; (1982) 150 CLR 500
Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; (2003) 216 CLR 327
Triggell v Pheeney [1951] HCA 23; (1951) 82 CLR 497

PARTIES: Jennie Ryan - plaintiff
Rajaratnam Premachandran - defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20263/08

COUNSEL: S T Chrysanthou/P Maddigan - plaintiff
Self represented - defendant

SOLICITORS: Kalantzis Lawyers - plaintiff
Self represented - defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

Nicholas J

6 November 2009

20263/08 Ryan v Premachandran

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: By statement of claim filed 2 July 2008, the plaintiff, Jennie Ryan, claims damages in defamation against the defendant, Dr Rajaratnam Premachandran, arising out of the publication of an email on 10 April 2008. The claim is under the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act). As there was no election under s 21 of the Act for the proceedings to be tried by jury, the matter proceeded as a trial by judge alone on all issues. At the hearing the plaintiff was represented by counsel. The defendant was self-represented.

2 The plaintiff is, and since her appointment in 2004, has been the principal of Beecroft Primary School (the school). At the time of publication the defendant was a parent of two daughters who were students at the school.

3 The matter complained of was sent by the defendant by email on 10 April 2008 to 14 parents of students at the school, and to the plaintiff. It is in the following terms:

“Subject: Call for Mrs Ryan to quit

Dear Parents of Beecrof [sic] Primary School,

Mrs. Ryan is an incompetent, dishonest and untrustworthy person to remain in the principal position of the school. Hereby, I request her to give way to another person for the…

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 Ryan v Premachandran

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Premachandran [2009] NSWSC 1186
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1186
Decision Date: 6 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ryan v Premachandran involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Ryan, against the defendant, Premachandran. The dispute centred on an email sent by Premachandran to Ryan and 14 other recipients, which allegedly contained defamatory imputations about Ryan’s competence, honesty, and trustworthiness, as well as suggesting that Ryan was responsible for a decline in the educational standards of the school. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the imputations in the email were defamatory, and if so, whether the defendant had any available defences. Key issues included whether the imputations were true, which would justify the publication. The court also considered whether the email was protected by common law qualified privilege, specifically whether the communication was voluntary and whether there was a reciprocity of interest and an occasion triggering the privilege. Additionally, the court examined whether the publication was actuated by malice and whether the statements were fair comment or honest opinion rather than statements of fact. Finally, the court considered whether aggravated damages were appropriate and the assessment of damages.

The court found that the email contained defamatory imputations that were false and unjustified. It held that the defence of justification was not available as the imputations were not true. The common law qualified privilege did not apply because the communication was not voluntary. The court also found that the publication was actuated by malice. The statements were not fair comment or honest opinion but were considered statements of fact. Aggravated damages were awarded, and the court assessed the total damages at $100,000.

The court ordered Premachandran to pay Ryan $100,000 in damages, including aggravated damages, and to publish an apology on the school’s website and in the local newspaper.

Orders