Shiels v Manny

Case [2012] ACTCA 22

WARWICK SHIELS v JEFF MANNY and JEFF MANNY PTY LTD ACN 097 755 916
JEFF MANNY v WARWICK SHIELS
[2012] ACTCA 22 (21 May 2012)

APPEAL – Contempt of Court – Implied undertaking not to disclose contents of documents filed in court until received in evidence – Leave to modify implied undertaking – Special circumstances justifying leave – Competing public interest factors – Centrality of document to proceedings – Attitude of and prejudice to document author where explicitly malicious – Appeal against granting leave dismissed.

APPEAL – Defamation – Privilege – Absolute privilege – Mann v O’Neill – Statements made to Police – Presence of malice – Balancing free speech and proper administration of justice against protection from malicious complaint – UK authorities not followed – Appeal on privilege ground dismissed.

APPEAL – Defamation – Practice and Procedure – Application to join representative of deceased plaintiff as appellant – Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 122 – Meaning of “assert” and “continue” – Party “asserts” or “continues” cause of action while awaiting delivery of reserved judgement – Application dismissed.

APPEAL – Defamation – Whether defamation attributable to company – Sole company director and shareholder – No issue of authority – Indiscriminate use of company letterhead – Defamatory complaint not related to company business affairs – Director acting in personal capacity – Appeal ground dismissed.

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act2002 (ACT), ss 22, 122, 139A
Crimes Act1900 (ACT), s 396
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 126
Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT), s 270

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1613

Ascot Investments Pty Ltd v Harper (1981) 148 CLR 337
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Rural and General Insurance Ltd(ACN 000 007 492) [2006] FCA 151
Brown v Marron & Anor [2001] WASC 100
Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co of Australia Ltd (1931) 46 CLR 41
Eltran Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 25 FCR 322
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125
Mahon v Rahn (No 2) [2000] 1 WLR 2150
Mann v O’Neill (1997) 191 CLR 204
P v Manny [2010] ACTSC 50
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd [1991] 3 All ER 878
Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors v Bridgelands Securities Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 217
Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177
United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, McLelland J, 7 May 1982)
Westcott v Westcott [2009] QB 407

Butler, S (ed), Macquarie Dictionary (Macquarie Dictionary Publishers, 5th ed, 2009)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

ACTCA No. 24 of 2010
ACTCA No. 26 of 2010
SC No. 601 of 2005

Judges:        Refshauge, Burns and Marshall JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital…

Continue reading Shiels v Manny

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Shiels v Manny [2012] ACTCA 22
Case
[2012] ACTCA 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Shiels v Manny*, the appellant, Shiels, appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of a trial judge concerning damages awarded in a dispute between the parties. The appeal sought to overturn or vary the quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the damages awarded to the respondent. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the quantum of damages for the "matter first complained of" was an appropriate assessment, and if not, what the correct assessment should be. The court also considered an application by Judith Leslie Shiels to be joined as an appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge's award of $20,000 for the matter first complained of was insufficient. The court substituted this amount with a judgment of $50,000, thereby increasing the damages awarded to the respondent. The remainder of the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the application to join Judith Leslie Shiels as an appellant was refused. The parties were granted leave to file written submissions regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appellant’s appeal is allowed to the extent that the judgment of the trial judge awarding damages of $20 000.00 for the matter first complained of is set aside, and judgment for $50 000.00 is substituted.

2.

The remainder of the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

3.

The application by Judith Leslie Shiels to be joined as an appellant is refused.

4.

The parties have leave to file and serve written submissions as to costs within 14 days.

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.