Stuckey v AMA - [2018] VSC 275

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2017 02461
S CI 2017 02462

RONALD PTASZNIK	Plaintiff
v
AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (VICTORIA) LIMITED (ACN 064 557 678)	First Defendant
FRANCES MIRABELLI	Second Defendant

STEPHEN STUCKEY	Plaintiff
v
AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (VICTORIA) LIMITED (ACN 064 557 678)	First Defendant
FRANCES MIRABELLI	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 May 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 May 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stuckey v AMA
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 275

---

DEFAMATION – Application by defendants for leave to amend defence to add defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) (‘Act’) – Plaintiffs are senior medical officers and academics at Monash Health and Monash University – Alleged defamation concerned letter sent by defendants to, first, doctors and, later, in identical terms to non-medical staff – Emails sent by a third party to recipients of letter in the month prior to circulation of letter (‘earlier emails’) – Plaintiffs opposed application on basis that the alleged opinion is incapable of arising from the letter the subject of the proceedings, is substantially different from the plaintiffs’ meanings, does not meet the sting of the plaintiffs’ meanings and is not stated or referred to in the alleged defamatory publication – Whether defendants are able to rely upon earlier emails to satisfy the requirement that their opinion be based upon material stated or referred to in the letter or ‘notorious’ to the letter’s recipients – Hanks v Johnston [2015] VSC 570, referred to – Whether alleged facts can be ‘notorious’ in context of a limited audience and outside context of a mass media publication – Pleading not hopeless and issues raised should go to trial – Defendants granted leave to amend defence substantially in the form proposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D P Gilbertson QC	Ball & Partners
For the Defendant	Mr A C R Anderson	DLA Piper

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiffs in these proceedings for defamation are senior medical officers and academics at Monash Health and Monash University (‘Monash Imaging’). The defendants in both proceedings are the Australian Medical Association (‘AMA’), and the Chief Executive Officer of the AMA (‘AMA defendants’).

The alleged defamation is said to arise out of a letter sent by the CEO of the AMA to two different groups of people in February 2017 (‘letter’): the first to doctors at Monash Imaging, and the second in identical terms to non‑medical staff at Monash Imaging. The letter is reproduced below:

Dear Doctor,
As you would be aware, Monash Health is undertaking a review of its radiology unit. This review follows serious concerns regarding clinical performance, bullying and harassment, governance and complaint processes.
In support of our members, AMA Victoria called for this review – a review that is fair, thorough, independent and confidential for all employees involved. Unfortunately, the review being undertaken by Monash is,…

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 Stuckey v AMA

Details

AGLC: Stuckey v AMA [2018] VSC 275
Case: [2018] VSC 275
Decision Date: 30 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuckey v AMA involved a defamation claim brought by senior medical officers and academics at Monash Health and Monash University against the Australian Medical Association (AMA). The plaintiffs alleged that they were defamed by a letter sent by the defendants to both doctors and non-medical staff. The plaintiffs opposed the AMA’s application for leave to amend their defence to include the defence of honest opinion under section 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic).

The legal issues before the court included whether the AMA’s proposed opinion could be based on material from the letter in question, or whether it could be founded on earlier emails sent by a third party that were received by the letter’s recipients. The plaintiffs argued that the AMA’s proposed opinion was substantially different from the meanings they sought to convey, did not meet the sting of those meanings, and was not referred to in the alleged defamatory publication. The court needed to determine whether the AMA could rely on the earlier emails to satisfy the requirement that their opinion be based on material stated or referred to in the letter or that was notorious to the recipients.

In deciding the matter, the court considered Hanks v Johnston [2015] VSC 570 and examined whether the alleged facts could be considered notorious in the context of a limited audience and outside the context of a mass media publication. The court found that the pleading was not hopeless and that the issues raised by the AMA’s proposed defence should go to trial. Consequently, the AMA was granted leave to amend their defence substantially in the form proposed.

The court's final orders allowed the AMA to proceed with their amended defence, including the defence of honest opinion, as proposed. This decision enabled the AMA to present their defence at trial, subject to the court’s further consideration of the merits of the case.

Orders