Walker v Brimblecombe

The case of Walker v Brimblecombe involved a defamation claim brought by the respondent against the appellants concerning statements made in an email to shareholders and an attached document. The email and document were later republished to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The appellants sought to have the claim and statement of claim struck out, but their application was unsuccessful. The appellants subsequently filed a "Notice of Appeal" in March 2015, which was not in the prescribed Form 64, and they did not file a separate application for leave to appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the document filed should be treated as a composite Leave to Appeal and Notice of Appeal.

The appellants argued that the primary judge should have made a preliminary determination on whether the republication was defamatory. However, this was not necessary as per Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, and the court did not need to determine the defamatory nature of the republication to decide on striking out the proceeding. The court held that the relevant inquiry was whether relevant minds might possibly differ on the issue of the capability of bearing a defamatory meaning. The appellants' argument that they should have a defence of qualified privilege despite their alleged malice in the original publication was also rejected. The court noted that judicial statements indicate that it is the desire to injure another that deprives a person of a defence of qualified privilege. Since the issue of malice had not been decided, the court held that a trial was necessary to determine the availability of the defence of qualified privilege.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application and the appeal on the standard basis.