Gaynor v Burns

District Court of NSW|2015-09-03

Judgment

These are reasons for the striking out of the defence of contextual justification pleaded in paragraph 7 of the Further Amended Defence and for requiring the defendant to file a First Further Amended Defence clarifying whether the defence of qualified privilege is pleaded solely at common law and/or s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
The plaintiff initially commenced proceedings by summons filed on 12 September 2014. The proceedings were case managed by the Judicial Registrar, during which time the plaintiff filed a statement of claim on 23 April 2015. The defendant, who appeared in person, filed a series of defences claiming "public interest" and "the public's right to know", defences unknown to law.
Following transfer to the Defamation List on 5 June 2015, the defendant filed an "Amended Defence" on 16 June 2015 which added a defence of contextual justification based on the plaintiff's imputations, which is impermissible (Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Kermode; Besser v Kermode (2011) 81 NSWLR 157). Given this unsatisfactory history of inadequately pleaded defences, I referred the defendant on 30 July 2015 to a barrister on the pro bono panel for the purpose of providing a further amended defence and the proceedings were stood over to today, with a warning that unless a defence in proper form was filed, the defence most recently filed may be struck out.
A "Further Amended Defence" was filed on 11 August 2015. Although the fourth defence filed, it is the first to be prepared by a legal practitioner. It is a significant improvement on the previous defences, but two of the defences pleaded were the subject of challenge by Mr Rasmussen, namely the defences of contextual justification and qualified privilege.

The qualified privilege defence

Paragraph 4 of the Further Amended Defence merely states that the matters complained of were "published under qualified privilege", without identifying whether the defence is pleaded at common law, pursuant to s 30, or both. (The paragraph also includes a defence of "comment" [sic], which appears to owe much to the form of the defence under the repealed legislation.)
The particulars of qualified privilege are as follows: "Particulars of Qualified Privilege (a) The matters were published to their recipients who had an interest or apparent interest in matters of discrimination, including discrimination against homosexual Australians; (b) The matters were published in the course of giving information on that subject to the recipients; (c) The defendant's conduct was, in the circumstances, reasonable; and (d) The defendant repeats the above particulars of public interest."
The particulars of public interest, referred to in subparagraph (d), are as follows: "Particulars of Public Interest (a) The rights of homosexual Australians; (b) Anti-discrimination law in Australia; (c) The plaintiff's conduct in vilifying and/or permitting the vilification of persons by reason of their sexual orientation."
These rolled-up particulars do not assist in identifying whether the defence is published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law, pursuant to s 30, or both. Ms Curry told me that the defence was pleaded at common law only but, given the reference to "reasonableness" and the difficulties of pleading such a defence to a website publication, that seems unlikely.
The desirability of parties identifying with precision which qualified privilege defence is pleaded has long been regarded as essential. In Hanrahan v Ainsworth (1990) 22 NSWLR 73 Clarke JA (at 100A) stated: "Notwithstanding, where both types of qualified privilege are pleaded it is imperative, in my view, that the trial judge, who concludes that the defence has been made out, express clearly whether he is upholding the defence of statutory or common law privilege. The reasons why he should do so are, if I might respectfully say so, obvious and are similar to those outlined by Moffitt P in Wright v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1977] 1 NSWLR 697 at 701 et seq, when dealing with the duty to give reasons."
In those proceedings, the defence had accurately pleaded both common law and statutory qualified privilege, and the failure to identify whether the successful defence was statutory or at common law was the failure of the trial judge. That failure resulted in the proceedings being remitted for retrial. It must follow that it would be equally unacceptable for a defendant to plead a defence of qualified privilege without identifying whether the defence was pleaded at common law, pursuant to s 30, or both.
The defence must be repleaded with precision to identify, both in relation to pleading and particulars, which of the defences is relied upon, together with the appropriate particulars for each such defence.

Costs

This is the fourth defence provided by the defendant. A fifth defence will be required.
While I note that the defendant represented himself until recently, and that this was the reason for the defects in the previous defences, the current defence has repeated the flawed s 26 pleading in the third defence as well as failing to articulate the basis for the qualified privilege defence, and amendment is necessary. Additionally, Ms Curry has foreshadowed a challenge to the form and capacity of imputations (a) - (d), an application which should have been brought while the proceedings were before the Judicial Registrar, or first placed in the Defamation List on 5 June 2015. That application must be heard before the proceedings can go further.
In those circumstances, the defendant must not only pay the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments required, but also the costs of today

Orders 1. Note that paragraph 7 of the defence is struck out (Judge Gibson to give reasons at the suggestion of Mr Rasmussen). 2. Grant leave to the defendant to file and serve an Amended Defence identifying the qualified privilege defence and, if s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is pleaded, setting out particulars of reasonableness, in 13 days. 3. Any capacity argument is to be raised when the matter is next listed, failing which the court will direct that the imputations, as currently pleaded, will go to trial. 4. Matter listed for an imputation argument on Thursday 17 September 2015 at 9:00am. 5. The defendant is to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the amendments to the defence. 6. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of today.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 September 2015

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (5)

Cited By (1)