Small v Mahony [2006] NTSC 97

PARTIES: SMALL, Aaron Troy

MAHONY, Shallyn Lee

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: SC 115 of 2005 (20508827)

DELIVERED: 15 December 2006

HEARING DATES: 4-7 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

DEFAMATION – Police officer acting in course of employment – Duty to communicate information – Occasion of qualified privilege – Absence of malice

CLAIM UNDER POLICE ADMINISTRATION ACT – Effect of s 162(1) – Claims statute barred

Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307, followed
Stephens v WA Newspapers (1994) 182 CLR 211, followed
Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1981] 1 NSWLR 76, referred to
Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269, referred to
Stuart v Bell (1981) 2 QB 341, followed
Adam v Ward (1917) AC 309, followed
Toogood v Spyring (1834) 149 ER 1044, followed

Police Administration Act (NT), s 162(1)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Self-represented
Defendant: I Morris

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Self-represented
Defendant: Hunt & Hunt

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0621
Number of pages: 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Small v Mahony [2006] NTSC 97
No SC 115 of 2005 (20508827)

BETWEEN:

SMALL, Aaron Troy
Plaintiff

AND:

MAHONY, Shallyn Lee
Defendant

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 December 2006)

[1] The plaintiff, who is a self-represented law student, seeks damages against the defendant, a police officer, arising out of events that occurred in Alice Springs on 1 September 2004. The plaintiff alleged that on that date the defendant defamed him on three separate occasions, that she unlawfully arrested or imprisoned him and that she committed the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The background

[2] On 1 September 2004 the plaintiff was an employee of the Red Dog Café in Alice Springs. He gave evidence that there was an ongoing concern held by his employer and by himself regarding the use by others of a private rubbish bin rented by the business. On several occasions the plaintiff had been in dispute with workers from the Alice Springs Town Council regarding the use of the bin. As a consequence he had researched the city by-laws in relation to the issue and he described the council’s view of the relevant by-law as “suspiciously vague”. He had decided that the situation was unfair to his employer. By virtue of his research he concluded that: “I was obliged to remove all such rubbish (ie rubbish wrongly placed in his employer’s bin) and place it in the Alice Springs Council bins as I was prohibited from permitting it to remain elsewhere”.

[3] On 1 September 2004 he went to the bin to dispose of some rubbish. He noticed that someone else (“some ignorant person”) had put their rubbish in the bin. He removed it and threw it on the ground. He described himself as being “generally amused at 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 Small v Mahony

Details

AGLC: Small v Mahony [2006] NTSC 97
Case: [2006] NTSC 97
Decision Date: 15 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Small sued Mahony, a police officer, for defamation and other torts. The dispute was resolved in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The plaintiff's claims were that the defendant defamed him by speaking false words, communicating defamatory information to his employer, and entering false information in the PROMIS system. The plaintiff also claimed damages for unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and misfeasance in public office.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Police Administration Act (NT), and if not, whether the plaintiff's claims had any merit. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under section 162(1) of the Police Administration Act (NT), as they were not brought within the required time. The court followed the decision in Northern Territory v Mengel and held that the six-year limitation period applied to the plaintiff's claims.

The court also considered whether the plaintiff's claims had any merit, had they not been statute-barred. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were without foundation. The words spoken by the defendant to the plaintiff were true, and any publication was on an occasion of qualified privilege. The plaintiff's claims in respect of the conversation between the defendant and the employer were abandoned. The entry on the PROMIS system was also on an occasion of qualified privilege. The plaintiff's claims for damages for unlawful arrest and/or unlawful imprisonment and for misfeasance in public office were also without foundation.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and ordered that there be judgment for the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred and, even if they were not, they would have been unsuccessful. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and dismissed the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff's proceedings are statute barred. Had they not been statute barred they would, in any event, have been unsuccessful.

The claim in regard to the words spoken to the plaintiff by the defendant would not have succeeded because:

(a) the words complained of were true,

(b) they were not shown to have been published, and

The claim in regard to the conversation between the defendant and the employer was abandoned.

The claim in respect of the entry on the PROMIS system would not have been successful because:

(a) the words complained of were true, and

(b) they were communicated on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The claim for damages for unlawful arrest and/or unlawful

imprisonment would have been unsuccessful as being without foundation.

The claim for damages for misfeasance in public office would have been unsuccessful as being without foundation.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed and there will be judgment for the defendant.

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.