Templar v Britton - [2013] NSWSC 1827

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Templar v Britton [2013] NSWSC 1827
Hearing dates: 2 December 2013
Decision date: 04 December 2013
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Refer to page 8 of these Reasons

Catchwords:
DEFAMATION - pleadings - amended pleading objected to as inconsistent with replaced pleading - plaintiff ordered to verify amended pleading

DEFAMATION - pleadings - whether 'sense and substance' of matter complained of republished - where republication did not identify plaintiff - plaintiff ordered to provide particulars of persons to whom matter republished who knew particulars of identification
DEFAMATION - imputations - ambiguity - imputation struck out with leave to re-plead
Legislation Cited: Defamation Act 2005
Cases Cited: Drummoyne Municipal Council v ABC (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Stephen Templar (plaintiff)
Audametrics Pty Ltd (second plaintiff)
Paul Britton (first defendant)
Bradley Laughlan (second defendant)
State of New South Wales (third defendant)
File Number(s): 2012/393936
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr Stephen Templar and a company, Audametrics Pty Ltd, against Mr Paul Britton (the principal of a school), Mr Bradley Lachlan (a student support co-ordinator) and the State of New South Wales as employer of those two persons.

The pleading of the claim has an unfortunate history. This judgment determines the defendants' objections to the fifth iteration of the pleading.

The proceedings arise out of remarks allegedly made by Mr Britton at a P&C meeting on 15 May 2012. Previous iterations of the pleading attributed to Mr Britton the words set out in Annexure G to the Further Amended Statement of Claim, as follows:

A man has approached the school about hearing tests for kids. I have discovered it's a scam as there are no details on the brochures. I will speak to the gentleman concerned.

The previous pleading, notably, also made a claim in respect of the republication of those remarks in the minutes of the meeting. It may be noted that the minutes record those words in almost exactly the same terms, as follows:

Man approached school about hearing tests for kids but Paul discovered it's a scam as no details on brochures, Paul will speak to the gentleman concerned.

It could be inferred that the pleading of the oral publication was drawn in terms from the minutes without the benefit of any other information about the terms of the original oral publication.

The oral publication is alleged to have been made to persons list in paragraph 10 of the previous pleading, who have presumably been identified as those who attended the P&C meeting.

The defendants' first complaint relates to the terms in which the oral publication is now pleaded in paragraph 6 of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim, as follows:

A man, Stephen Templar, has approached the school about conducting hearing tests for kids. I have discovered it's a scam. There are no details on the brochures. The company is Audiometrics. I will…

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 Templar v Britton

Details

AGLC: Templar v Britton [2013] NSWSC 1827
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1827
Decision Date: 04 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Templar v Britton involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff, Mr. Templar, alleged that the defendant, Mr. Britton, defamed him through statements made in a publication. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issues before the court related to the pleadings in the defamation action, specifically the consistency of the amended pleadings with the original pleadings, the republication of the defamatory matter without identifying the plaintiff, and the ambiguity of the imputations in the publication.

The court first addressed the objection to the amended pleadings, which the defendant claimed were inconsistent with the original pleadings. The court held that the plaintiff was required to verify the amended pleadings to ensure consistency and accuracy. Regarding the republication of the defamatory matter, the court ruled that the plaintiff must provide particulars of the individuals to whom the matter was republished, specifically those who knew the particulars of the plaintiff's identification. This was necessary to establish the scope and reach of the defamatory matter. Finally, the court considered the ambiguity of the imputations in the publication. The court found that the imputations were ambiguous and, therefore, struck them out. The plaintiff was granted leave to re-plead the ambiguous imputations more precisely.

The court's decision resulted in several orders. The plaintiff was required to verify the amended pleadings to confirm their consistency with the original pleadings. The plaintiff also had to provide particulars of the individuals to whom the defamatory matter was republished, particularly those who knew the plaintiff's identification. Finally, the plaintiff was granted leave to re-plead the ambiguous imputations to ensure clarity and precision.

Orders