Templar v Watt (No 3)

A paediatric specialist employed by the government, Dr. Templar, wrote a letter to an officer of the Department of Education, Mr. Watt, raising concerns about the department's unqualified support for a business offering hearing tests in public schools for a fee. Mr. Watt sued Dr. Templar for defamation, alleging that the letter contained false and defamatory statements. The court considered whether the letter was protected by qualified privilege at common law or under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and whether the statements were relevant to the occasion of privilege and whether Dr. Templar's conduct in publishing the matter was reasonable in the circumstances.

The court determined that the occasion of qualified privilege arose because there was a legal, moral or social duty to communicate the concerns to the department, and the recipient had a corresponding interest in receiving them. The statements in the letter were relevant to the occasion because they related to the department's support for the business offering hearing tests, which was the subject of Dr. Templar's concerns. The court also found that Dr. Templar's conduct in publishing the matter was reasonable in the circumstances because the letter was sent in good faith and without malice, and the concerns were based on information that Dr. Templar reasonably believed to be true.

Dr. Templar was found to have a valid defence to the defamation claim because the letter was protected by qualified privilege. The court also found that the email did not constitute conduct in trade or commerce under the Australian Consumer Law because it was not part of a course of conduct that was commercial in nature. The court dismissed the defamation claim, and Mr. Watt's claim under the Australian Consumer Law was also dismissed.