(a) Leave to appeal granted upon condition that the claimant files his draft Notice of Appeal dated 19 July 2006 within seven days; (b) Appeal dismissed; (c) The claimant to pay the opponent’s costs of the summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION - Publication – Generally – Republication – Where defamatory matter signed by recipients who then republish jointly with original author
Cl: S M L Littlemore QC / S T Chrysanthou Opp: K P Smark
SOLICITORS:
Cl: Carroll and Associates, Sydney Opp: Larcombe Legal, Mona Vale
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
DC 3706/03
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Gibson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
7 September 2004
CA 40259/2006
BEAZLEY JA TOBIAS JA BELL J
Friday 15 June 2007
TRANTUM v McDOWELL
FACTS
The claimant and opponent were both owners of units within the same apartment complex. The opponent was the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Owners Corporation of the Strata Plan for the complex.
The claimant wrote a letter making allegations against the opponent which were found to be defamatory. The claimant was found to have taken the letter to the owner/occupiers of other units within the apartment complex, several of whom signed it. The letter and signatures were then presented to the Executive Committee.
The primary judge found that the signatories were also recipients and awarded $50,000 in damages.
HELD, granting leave and dismissing the appeal:
1. There were two publications. The first was the publication of the letter by the claimant to each of the signatories. The second was its republication by all the signatories (including the claimant) to the Executive Committee. The fact that on its republication the signatories became joint tortfeasors with the claimant was irrelevant to its initial publication by the claimant to those who signed it.
Distinguished: Davis v Resources for Human Development Inc 770 A.2d 353 (2001)
CA 40259/2006
BEAZLEY JA TOBIAS JA BELL J
Friday 15 June 2007
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 Trantum v McDowell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Trantum v McDowell [2007] NSWCA 138
Case
[2007] NSWCA 138
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal in a defamation proceeding between Trantum (the claimant) and McDowell (the opponent). The dispute concerned the republication of defamatory material.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the recipients of a defamatory document, who signed it and then republished it jointly with the original author, could be considered to have republished the defamatory matter.
The Court of Appeal determined that the act of signing the document by the recipients, followed by its joint republication with the author, constituted a republication of the defamatory material. This reasoning was based on established principles of defamation law concerning the dissemination of defamatory statements. The Court granted leave to appeal on the condition that the claimant file a draft Notice of Appeal within seven days. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to pay the opponent's costs of the summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(a) Leave to appeal granted upon condition that the claimant files his draft Notice of Appeal dated 19 July 2006 within seven days;
(b) Appeal dismissed;
(c) The claimant to pay the opponent's costs of the summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal