[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 Solomon v Sumner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Solomon v Sumner [2005] WASC 128
Case
[2005] WASC 128
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Solomon v Sumner [2005] WASC 128, Julia Solomon, a clinical psychologist, sued Jan Sumner, a social worker employed by the Department of Family and Children's Services, for defamation. The dispute arose when Sumner informed Ms Strowger, a foster carer, that further lessons for Robert, a child in care, would not be approved as Solomon was not on the Department's list of approved practitioners. Solomon argued that this statement carried defamatory imputations about her character and professional suitability. The court found that the statement, while disparaging, did not carry the specific defamatory meanings Solomon alleged, nor was it likely to suggest criminality. Furthermore, the court held that Sumner's statement to Strowger was made on an occasion of qualified privilege, as Sumner had a legitimate interest in informing Strowger of the decision not to approve further lessons, and Strowger had a corresponding interest in receiving this information. The court also determined that Solomon failed to prove that Sumner acted with malice, a necessary element to defeat the defence of qualified privilege. Consequently, the court dismissed Solomon's claim for defamation.