Winnel v Snow - [2007] ACTSC 34

WINNEL v SNOW

[2007] ACTSC 34

DEFAMATION – letter to ACT Government Minister subsequently attached to press release – whether defamatory on its ordinary and natural meaning – whether defamatory as a true innuendo – context of vigorous political debate

EVIDENCE – newspaper article published under Minister’s name and concerning portfolio issues as evidence of government policy

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380
Gardiner v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 682
John Fairfax Publications v Rivkin (2003) 201 ALR 77
Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234
Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1

No. SC 780 of 2002

Judge: Stone J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 1 June 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 780 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:ROBERT WINNEL
Plaintiff

AND:TERRENCE SNOW
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Stone J
Date:  1 June 2007
Place:  Sydney (heard in Canberra)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application is dismissed with costs.

Background to these proceedings

This is an action in defamation between two prominent businessmen in the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff, Mr Robert Winnel, is a director of and shareholder in several property development companies, most notably The Village Building Company. He claims to have been defamed in a letter sent by the defendant, Mr Terrence Snow, to Mr Simon Corbell on 19 November 2002. Mr Snow is Executive Chairman of the Canberra International Airport. At all relevant times, Mr Corbell, who is not a party to this proceeding, was the ACT Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr Snow’s letter to Mr Corbell was prompted by an advertisement that appeared in the Canberra Times newspaper on that day (19 November 2002), opposing the ACT Government’s policy concerning land development in the ACT. The letter, which was on the letterhead of Canberra International Airport, was addressed to Mr Corbell in his ministerial capacity and signed by Mr Snow as Executive Chairman. The text of the letter was:

I would like it clearly understood that the nonsense advertisement inserted in today’s Canberra Times by the Master Builders’ Association and the HIA and the Village Building Company in no way reflects the views of the private sector in Canberra. This has Bob Winnel’s fingerprints all over it.

If this document was meant to somehow put pressure on the ACT Government to abandon its approach to planning and the forthcoming Spatial Plan, Social Plan and White Paper, then it should say so but it does not. They do not seem to have any constructive suggestions…

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 Winnel v Snow

Details

AGLC: Winnel v Snow [2007] ACTSC 34
Case: [2007] ACTSC 34
Decision Date: 1 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Winnel v Snow, the plaintiff sought to sue the defendant for defamation. The alleged defamatory material was a letter sent by the defendant to the ACT Government Minister, which was later attached to a press release. The plaintiff argued that the letter was defamatory both on its ordinary and natural meaning and as a true innuendo, especially in the context of the vigorous political debate surrounding the matter. The defendant, however, argued that the letter was not defamatory and that the context in which it was published should be taken into account.

The court was required to determine whether the letter was defamatory on its ordinary and natural meaning, and whether it was defamatory as a true innuendo. The court also had to consider the context in which the letter was published, including the nature of the political debate at the time. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to protect his reputation against the defendant's right to freedom of speech and political expression.

The court found that the letter was not defamatory on its ordinary and natural meaning. The court also found that the letter was not defamatory as a true innuendo. The court considered the context in which the letter was published, including the vigorous political debate, and found that the letter was not capable of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court also found that a newspaper article published under the Minister's name and concerning portfolio issues could not be relied upon as evidence of government policy.

The court dismissed the application with costs. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a case of defamation against the defendant. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the right to protect one's reputation against the right to freedom of speech and political expression, particularly in the context of vigorous political debate. The court also found that the newspaper article could not be relied upon as evidence of government policy.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.