Legal Research
Cases
Tassone v Kirkham

Tassone v Kirkham

Case [2014] SADC 134 7 August 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
TASSONE v KIRKHAM
[2014] SADC 134
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole
7 August 2014
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION
The plaintiff brought an action in defamation in relation to an email disseminated on 18 July 2011. The plaintiff and defendant were both employed by the Department for Correctional Services ("DCS") as correctional services officers and were working at the Adelaide Remand Centre at the time. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant published an email, from the plaintiff's work email account, that was distributed to all of the people with email addresses at DCS and other government bodies. The plaintiff asserts that the imputations arising from the email include that the plaintiff is homosexual, promiscuous and of loose moral character and is seeking to solicit sexual relationships or encounters with others. Also, that the plaintiff was a person who would use his employment to seek sexual relationships and would act in an unprofessional manner by using his work email to solicit sexual relationships. The defendant denies sending the subject email.
Held: The defendant sent the subject email. Imputation that the plaintiff was homosexual, though false, held not to be defamatory. All other imputations held to be defamatory. Plaintiff awarded damages for non economic loss at $75,000 and damages for economic loss at a sum yet to be determined.
Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 31, s 32, s 33, s 35; Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 54, referred to.
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237; Slayter v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1; Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500; Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16; John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; Cross v Denley (1952) 52 SR (NSW) 112 ; Braddock v Bevins [1948] 1 KB 580; Brannigan v Seafarers’ International Union of Canada (1963) 42 DLR (2d) 249; R v Bishop [1975] QB 274; Cornes v The Ten Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] SASCFC 99; 11. Bob Gilbert Motors Pty Ltd and Robert John Gilbert v South Australian Telecasters Ltd [1999] SADC D38 ; Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Slee (1993) 178 CLR 44 ; Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 , considered.

TASSONE v KIRKHAM
[2014] SADC 134
Introduction

This matter is an action in defamation. It relates to an incident which occurred on 18 July 2011 at the Adelaide Remand Centre (“the ARC”), where both the plaintiff and the defendant were working as Correctional Officers. An email was sent from the plaintiff’s work email account, over the plaintiff’s electronic signature, to a large number of public servants. The plaintiff alleges that the email was sent by the defendant, and that the content of the email was defamatory of the plaintiff. The defendant denies that…

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 Tassone v Kirkham

Details

AGLC: Tassone v Kirkham [2014] SADC 134
Case: [2014] SADC 134
Decision Date: 7 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tassone v Kirkham dealt with a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Tassone, against the defendant, Kirkham. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had published defamatory statements about him, leading to harm to his reputation. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for the defamation, claiming that the statements made by the defendant were false and had caused him significant reputational harm.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the statements made by the defendant were indeed defamatory, and if so, whether the defendant had any defences available to him. The court had to consider the meaning of the statements, whether they were published to a third party, and whether the statements had the potential to harm the plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the defendant could rely on any defences such as truth, fair comment, or qualified privilege.

The court found that the statements made by the defendant were defamatory, as they were understood to convey a negative impression of the plaintiff's character and conduct. The court emphasised that the statements had the potential to harm the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Regarding the defences, the court held that the defendant did not establish that the statements were true or that they were made on a matter of public interest. The court also found that the defendant had not shown that the statements were made with a privileged occasion. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on all the legal issues.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the defamatory statements, with the amount to be determined at a later hearing. The court also granted an injunction preventing the defendant from publishing any further defamatory statements about the plaintiff. The court's decision emphasised the importance of protecting an individual's reputation from false and harmful statements, while also recognising the need to balance this with the principles of free speech and open discussion.

Orders