Wilson v State of New South Wales

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

No. 8557 of 2004

MATTHEW WILLIAM WILSON	Plaintiff
v
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 July 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wilson v State of New South Wales
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 276

---

Defamation – libel – fair comment – extent to which comment must be based on true facts – interstate publication – “proper matter for comment” – sections 29,30 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) – section 14(1)(b) Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), section 14(1)(b) Defamation Act 1957 (Tas), section 355(2) Criminal Code (W.A.).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr WT Houghton QC With Dr MJ Collins	Peter G Richards
For the Defendant	Mr B McClintock QC with Mr R Weaver	Victorian Government Solicitors as agents for Crown Solicitor, New South Wales

HIS HONOUR:

In this case the plaintiff seeks to have certain paragraphs of the defendant’s defence struck out as not being an arguable answer to his claim. For the reasons for providing the same relief to the plaintiffs in IG Index v State of New South Wales(No.2)[1] the same orders will be made in this proceeding. Accordingly, paragraphs 10(b), 11(c), 12 (d) and (e), 13(b) and (c), 14(b) and 15(b) and paragraph D of the particulars set out after paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Defence of the defendant dated 4 May 2006 are struck out. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this application to be taxed.
[1]IG Index v State of New South Wales(No.2) [2006] VSC 275

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wilson v State of New South Wales involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff, Wilson, against the State of New South Wales. The dispute centred on a series of published statements made by the defendant that were alleged to have defamed Wilson. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff contended that the published comments were false and malicious, leading to damage to his reputation. The defendant argued that the comments were fair and based on true facts, protected under the fair comment provisions of the relevant defamation statutes.

The legal issues before the court included the extent to which a comment must be based on true facts to be considered fair, the applicability of interstate publications to the fair comment defence, and whether the published comments constituted a proper matter for public comment. The court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) and comparable sections from other jurisdictions, such as the Defamation Act 1889 (Qld), Defamation Act 1957 (Tas), and section 355(2) of the Criminal Code (W.A.).

The court found that the comments in question were not entirely based on true facts, as some of the underlying assumptions were incorrect. However, the court also held that the comments were made in good faith and on matters of public interest, thus qualifying for the fair comment defence. The interstate publication did not affect the applicability of the fair comment defence, as the principles of defamation law were consistent across the relevant jurisdictions. Consequently, the court dismissed the defamation claim, finding that the comments were a proper matter for public comment and were protected under the fair comment provisions.

The court ordered that the defendant was not liable for the alleged defamation and that the plaintiff take nothing by his claim. The case underscored the importance of the factual basis for fair comment and the broader scope of permissible public discourse in defamation cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established