Murray v Raynor

Solicitors: Kalantzis Lawyers (Appellant) Goldsmiths Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/171030 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: [2019] NSWDC 189 Date of Decision: 17 May 2019 Before: Gibson DCJ File Number(s): 2017/261180

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Headnote [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] In 2017, the appellant, Ms Murray, was a tenant at the Watermark apartment building in Manly. The respondent, Mr Raynor, was a resident proprietor of one of the units in the Watermark building and the Chair of the strata committee (sometimes referred to as the owners corporation) for the building. An issue at the building at that time was a concern expressed by the respondent about the security of mailboxes at the complex and whether by reason of the appellant leaving her mailbox unlocked theft from other mailboxes at the Watermark building was facilitated. A good deal of electronic communication passed between the parties about that subject. Ultimately, an email from the appellant was sent to the respondent and copied to 16 other recipients (being the owners of the units at the Watermark), which prompted proceedings in defamation. The primary judge found in favour of the respondent and awarded him $120,000 in damages. The appellant proceeded in this court on the basis that the pleaded imputations did arise, but said that nevertheless the defence of qualified privilege was made out and the respondent failed to prove malice. The appellant did not press an allegation of apprehended bias raised by the notice of appeal. The issues in the appeal were: 1. Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find the defence of common law privilege applied. 2. Whether the primary judge incorrectly assessed the quantum of damages.

The Court (Payne JA, Macfarlan JA and Emmett AJA agreeing) held, allowing the appeal: The critical first step in determining whether a defamatory publication is made in circumstances attracting a qualified privilege at common law is to identify the privileged occasion. As ultimately accepted by the respondent, the primary judge had not sufficiently done so. The primary judge should have concluded that the occasion of qualified privilege was the communication to residents of Watermark on the topic of management of the building including the security of mailboxes: [22]-[24]. LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Ltd v Michael Lassanah & Ors [2011] NSWCA 370 applied. To be relevant to the occasion for the purposes of common law qualified privilege, defamatory statements must be sufficiently connected to the privileged occasion to attract the defence. Scientific precision is impossible in determining the relevance of defamatory statements to the privileged occasion. In every case a judgment is involved. In finding that the publication was made for "the purpose of humiliating, belittling and insulting [the respondent] in the most hurtful way possible", the primary judge appeared to conflate matters relevant in determining malice with determination of whether the publication was relevant to the occasion of qualified privilege. Even if this finding was borne out, it was critical to examine whether the defamatory matter in respect of which the defence was advanced was extraneous to that subject matter or was sufficiently connected and germane and reasonably appropriate to it. Not having precisely identified the privileged occasion, the finding of the primary judge about the relevance of the defamatory matter to the privileged occasion was also flawed. The matter complained of was relevant and germane to the occasion of privilege: [33]-[42], [55]. Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd; Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298; [2011] HCA; Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181; 149 ER 1044 referred to. The primary judge should have found that there had been an "attack" for the purposes of the reply to attack subset of qualified privilege. However, the reply was made to a different "body" than the matter complained of, so did not attract the defence: [53]-[60]. Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad (2012) 247 CLR 31; [2012] HCA 44 referred to. Proof of ill-will, prejudice, bias, recklessness, lack of belief in truth or some improper motive is insufficient of itself to establish that malice actuated the publication. The primary judge's findings that malice had been proven should be set aside. The respondent was not entitled to expand the debate about malice in this Court. The correct conclusion was that the respondent failed to establish malice: [73], [87]-[88]. Roberts v Bass; Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36; Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298; [2011] HCA 30; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34.

The Court (Payne JA, Macfarlan JA and Emmett AJA agreeing) held, on a contingent basis: There is in New South Wales an unresolved issue about the correct interpretation of ss 34 and 35 of the Defamation Act 2005. There is much to commend the view of that the cap provided by s 35 is to be understood as fixing the outer limit of damages for non-economic loss, in contrast to the position taken in Victoria. Argument was not addressed to this issue and it is undesirable for that reason to reach any conclusions here: [92]-[95]. Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386; Tabbaa v Nine Network Pty Ltd (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 468; Chel v Fairfax Media Publications (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 996; Visscher v Maritime Union of Australia (No 6) (2014) 98 NSWLR 764; [2014] NSWSC 350; Kim Anne Ahmed v Harbour Radio Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1928; Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 1651; Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1091; Bauer Media v Wilson (2018) 56 VR 674; [2018] VSCA 154 considered. Even assuming the more liberal approach to the cap on damages preferred in Victoria is adopted, an award of $120,000 for an email in these terms addressed to 16 people was a manifestly excessive award. On general damages, no more than $25,000 should have been awarded. There was no occasion in this case for the award of aggravated damages: [95]-[97].

Judgment

1. MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Payne JA.
2. PAYNE JA: In 2017, the appellant, Ms Murray, was a tenant at the Watermark apartment building in Manly. The respondent, Mr Raynor, was a resident proprietor of one of the units in the Watermark building and the Chair of the strata committee (sometimes referred to as the owners corporation) for the building.
3. An issue at the building at that time was a concern expressed by Mr Raynor about the security of mailboxes at the complex and whether by reason of the appellant, Ms Murray, leaving her mailbox unlocked theft from other mailboxes at the Watermark building was facilitated.
4. A good deal of electronic communication passed between the parties about that subject. Ultimately, an email from Ms Murray was sent to Mr Raynor and copied to 16 other recipients (being the owners of the units at the Watermark), which prompted proceedings in defamation. On 17 May 2019, following a judge alone trial, Gibson DCJ delivered judgment in those proceedings in favour of Mr Raynor and awarded him $120,000 in damages. Ms Murray appealed as of right to this Court.

Brief facts

1. In July 2016, the appellant became a tenant at Watermark Apartments in Manly. The respondent lived in an apartment which he owned at Watermark and was the Chairman of the Strata Committee.
2. The respondent sent a number of emails to the appellant from a time shortly after she moved in to the Watermark building: 1. on 25 July 2016, an email to the appellant (copied to residents and agents for the owners of tenanted units) enclosing information regarding Watermark. This included a section about "Mailboxes". There was no reference in that email to locking mailboxes; 2. on 31 August 2016, an email to the appellant, stating "I notice your mailbox has been left unlocked for quite a while?"; 3. on 13 December 2016, an email to the appellant, copying an employee of the strata managers for Watermark, raising a complaint about a party. The appellant responded the same day; 4. on 10 April 2017, an email to the appellant stating: "Residents have again expressed their concern over your mailbox being left open all the time. There have been a number of incidents in Manly of thieves searched thru mailboxes looking for mail and Identity papers and having books obviously open can only encourage them. Would you mind closing the box." The email also included a copy of the text of the email sent on 31 August 2016; 1. on 21 April 2017, the respondent sent a group email to owners, residents and agents of the Watermark stating that during the night of 20/21 April "potential thieves" had opened mailboxes in the building. "All Residents It appears that during the night of 20/21 April 17 our mailboxes were opened by potential thieves. (At least 10 of the 15 boxes were still open this morning, so it is probable that all were opened during the night.) As you would be aware from many articles in the local press, this is a common problem in Manly and potentially serious as the "boxers" are after documents that allow them to steal your identity and obtain credit cards etc., in your name. Accordingly would you please • make sure your mailbox is closed and locked ASAP (a number are still open this evening). • keep it locked so as not to encourage opportunists to try the boxes or check on our lock types. • check to see if you may have had important documents in the box last night that could be used in Identity theft. We will check to see if there is something we can do to improve security of the boxes but in the interim - in your own Interests - please follow the advice in this article: letterboxes-for-identity-theft-and-for-bank-cards/news/story/aa1ad2da10e5110c35abff107107d9f6?nk=700c 33692e4c12066c360445c0ec05d3-1492757784 Regards Gary Raynor Chairman of the Strata Committee …"; 1. the respondent included a link to an article on the Daily Telegraph website, concerning identity theft based on mail stolen from mailboxes. The Daily Telegraph article, with a Manly Daily by-line, was published on 20 December 2016 and was titled "Stealing mail from letterboxes for identity theft and for bank cards". The article reported that the police were "urging residents to secure their letterboxes after a spate of mail thefts in Manly and Dee Why in recent weeks". The article quoted police officers saying that while mail theft might seem like a petty crime, it could facilitate identity theft. Northern Beaches crime manager Inspector Justin Hadley was reported as saying that residents should use padlocks on their letterboxes or install improved locks. He also stated that "strata managers should consider the secure placement and design of letter boxes and the installation of CCTV to catch and deter mail thieves."; 2. on 27 April 2017, the respondent emailed the appellant. The email said he presumed that the appellant was away and asked that she arrange to have her mailbox closed "and kept locked at all times" (emphasis in original). He went on to say that "exactly" what he had warned about had occurred, and that the appellant's "open box may have contributed to the ease with which they apparently obtained a master key to open the other boxes". This email included the text of the emails of 10 April 2017 and 31 August 2016. The appellant responded the same day: "Hi Gary Wow! What's your take on this? "…and your open box may have contributed to the ease with which they apparently obtained a master key to open the other boxes" Regards Trish"; 1. the respondent replied on 28 April 2017. He reiterated that "it is possible" that the appellant leaving her letterbox open had contributed to the break ins, and recounted that he had been told by locksmiths "that by checking the barrel on the lock [thieves] can determine the lock type and have what is effectively a master key cut for the locks.", and that this was apparently the most common way they gain access to corporate boxes. The email continued by saying "we have no way of knowing" whether this was done by checking the appellant's open box, or if they already had a collection of master keys. The email concluded, "[i]n any case you will have to keep your box closed and locked in the future"; 2. on 2 May 2017, the respondent sent a further group email, reporting that "at least five of our mailboxes were again opened over the night of 1/2 May 17". This email also included a copy of the contents of the 21 April email, including the link to the Daily Telegraph website; 3. on 5 May 2017, the respondent sent an email to the appellant, saying that her mailbox had been open "for the last two days". The email asked whether the box was "left open or been opened by someone else". Copied below were the emails of 27 April and 10 April 2017, and 31 August 2016; 4. On 24 May 2017, the respondent sent an email to the appellant, copying the agent for the owner of the appellant's unit. Copies of a number of the earlier emails were attached. That email was as follows: "Hi Trish As your mailbox has again been open for the last few days it is obvious I have not been able to convince you of the seriousness of this issue. As I pointed out in my emails on 27/4/17 and 28/4/17 it is probable that your insistence in leaving the mailbox open during many months is the likely cause of the so called 'boxers' being able to obtain a skeleton key to our corporate mailboxes. The consequences of this breach of the security of our mailboxes have been serious - and may get more serious. In addition to the fact that residents have been inconvenienced and - in some cases - obliged to go to the expense of obtaining Postal Boxes - it is still possible that the Owners Corporation may have to have all the boxes rekeyed. This would be a serious expense and inconvenience for all concerned. If this becomes necessary - or individual residents suffer losses or expenses as a consequence of the breach - I believe the Committee would - and should - seek compensation from the owner of Lot 9. (By copy, I am notifying the agent for Lot 9 that this is a real possibility.) While it is now too late to overcome the fact that at least one group of thieves have access to the boxes, I must insist that you lock your mailbox - and keep it locked in future - to avoid further aggravating the problem. Regards Gary Raynor Chairman of the Strata Committee".

The pleadings

1. The respondent's further amended statement of claim dated 13 December 2018 pleaded the following defamatory imputations: 1. The respondent unreasonably harassed the appellant by consistently threatening her by email (lines 73-74 and the matter as a whole). 2. The respondent acted menacingly towards the appellant by consistently threatening her by email (lines 73-74 and the matter as a whole). 3. The respondent is a malicious person who sent threatening emails to the appellant and copied in other residents of the Watermark building for the express purpose of publicly humiliating the appellant (lines 72-73 and the matter as a whole). 4. The respondent is a small minded busybody who wastes the time of fellow residents on petty items concerning the running of the Watermark building (the matter as a whole).
2. The appellant's defence pleaded the existence of common law qualified privilege. The respondent's reply pleaded malice.

Decision of the primary judge

1. On 17 May 2019, the primary judge delivered her judgment. Her Honour found each of the pleaded defamatory imputations to have been conveyed and addressed a number of issues which are no longer relevant given the grounds of appeal. Relevantly, about the issue of common law qualified privilege, her Honour reached the following conclusions: 1. although the primary judge did not expressly identify the nature of the privileged occasion, her Honour concluded that qualified privilege may be lost if the communication was not made for the reason that makes the occasion privileged. In this case "the connection to the occasion of privilege was not made out and the occasion of privilege was lost."; 2. "[e]very sentence in this email conveyed contempt and anger." Whilst stating that this might be an exceptional case where the language and manner of the communication could result in loss of the privileged occasion, referring to Assaf v Skalkos [2000] NSWSC 418 and Skalkos v Assaf (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-644; [2002] NSWCA 14, her Honour did not determine the case on that basis; 3. "the nature of the occasion of privilege is lost because the communication has not been made for the reason that makes the occasion privileged, but for the purpose of humiliating, belittling and insulting the respondent in the most hurtful way possible." Her Honour elsewhere stated that "[m]erely being a resident in a strata building does not entitle that person the right to publish indiscriminately or contrary to meeting procedure."
2. The primary judge considered, on a contingent basis, the proposition that qualified privilege was attracted because the defamatory publication was a reply to attack. On this question her Honour reached the following conclusions: 1. there is a "privilege to hit back when one's reputation is attacked": Alexander v Clegg [2004] 3 NZLR 586 at 602. There must be some proportionality between the attack and the response: Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 750 at [135]; Heytesbury Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Subiaco (1998) 19 WAR 440; [1998] WASC 183. Not only must the response be germane and appropriate, but the language should not be unnecessarily defamatory or introduce extraneous matter(s); 2. in the present case, the appellant had not identified with precision the specific attack that she was responding to; 3. there was no attack upon the appellant in this case. The respondent was exercising his duties as Chair of the strata committee, first to check if the appellant was aware her mailbox was open, then, following police advice to secure mailboxes, to draw her attention to that police advice and finally to notify residents of the two mailbox break-ins and the need for vigilance. The appellant was neither mentioned in the group emails nor attacked. Her Honour found that the respondent's emails were courteous, if firm, in terms of passing on advice from the locksmith he consulted; 4. her Honour found that the response went wholly outside the parameters of the debate and was disproportionate, in terms of both content and language, to the document(s) the publication was replying to.

Consideration

1. In this appeal the appellant proceeded on the basis that the pleaded imputations did, in fact, arise but said that nevertheless the defence of qualified privilege was made out and the respondent failed to prove malice.
2. The issues in this Court on appeal were, first, the existence of common law qualified privilege. The components of the debate in this Court on this topic were: 1. identification of the privileged occasion; 2. relevance of the defamatory statements to the privileged occasion; and 3. whether malice had been established.
3. The second issue was the quantum of damages. It was submitted that for an email to a limited circle of recipients the award of $120,000 in damages was manifestly excessive.
4. The allegation of apprehended bias raised by the notice of appeal was abandoned at the hearing.

Submissions

1. The appellant submitted that her Honour failed specifically to identify the privileged occasion. It was submitted that this was a clear occasion of privilege.
2. The primary judge recognised that the correct process for determining a defence of common law qualified privilege comprised three elements, the first of which was to identify whether the occasion of qualified privilege was created. Her Honour referred to Megna v Marshall [2010] NSWSC 686 at [50]. Simpson J there said that the first element determining a defence of common law qualified privilege requires: "…identification of an occasion of qualified privilege by reference to all of the circumstances in which the communication is published, including, particularly, the subject matter of the communication: this involves the identification of a duty or interest in the publisher to communicate with respect to that subject matter, and the identification of a reciprocal interest in the recipient in receiving a communication with respect to that subject matter;"
3. The respondent ultimately accepted that the primary judge had not sufficiently identified a duty or interest in the publisher to communicate with respect to that subject matter and the identification of a reciprocal interest in the recipient in receiving a communication with respect to that subject matter. The respondent sought and obtained leave to file a notice of contention on this issue as follows: "Her Honour should have found that the occasion of qualified privilege was the communication to residents of Watermark on the topic of management of the building including the security of mailboxes."

Consideration

1. The critical first step in determining whether a defamatory publication is made in circumstances attracting a qualified privilege at common law is to identify the privileged occasion. In LVMH Watch & Jewellery Australia Pty Ltd v Michael Lassanah & Ors [2011] NSWCA 370 Bergin CJ in Eq, Giles and Campbell JJA agreeing held: "[91] In identifying the 'occasion' it is important to consider the 'hallmark' of reciprocity of duty and interest: Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon (2011) 279 ALR 631; [2011] HCA 30 per French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ at 635 [11]. It has also been referred to as a 'special and reciprocal interest': Andreyevich v Kosovich (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 357 per Jordan CJ at 363 referred to in Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited (2010) 241 CLR 79; [2010] HCA 25 per French CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ at 91 [31]. The Trial Judge referred to this as the 'guiding principle' and with reference to Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; [2004] HCA 5 observed that there must be a "close scrutiny of the circumstances of the case, of the situation of the parties, of the relations of all concerned and of the events leading up to and surrounding the publication" (at [207]) (These words are in fact those of Dixon J (as his Honour then was) in Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102 at 116). [92] In considering the defence of qualified privilege at common law it is imperative, as a first step, to identify the occasion to enable the subsequent proper analysis of whether the publication is relevant or germane to the occasion. If the occasion is not so identified it becomes difficult to assess whether something is foreign to the occasion when a claim of malice is made."
2. In this case, the appellant had an interest in communications between the strata committee and residents at Watermark about management of the building including the security of mailboxes. The owners of units in the Watermark building had a reciprocal interest in receiving a communication with respect to that subject matter. This was a topic of "special and reciprocal interest" to the appellant and all of the owners of units at Watermark.
3. It is sufficient for present purposes to accept the formulation offered in the respondent's notice of contention on this issue. The primary judge should have concluded that the occasion of qualified privilege was the communication to residents of Watermark on the topic of management of the building including the security of mailboxes.

Relevance of the defamatory statements to the privileged occasion

Submissions

1. It was submitted that the primary judge erred in finding at [289] that the "communication has not been made for the reason that makes the occasion privileged", as this conflated the questions of relevance to the privileged occasion and malice.
2. The appellant submitted that there must be a sufficient connection to the privileged occasion to attract the defence. No narrow view should be taken of the pursuit of duty or interest in what was said on an occasion of privilege.
3. It was submitted that the appellant's state of mind is not a matter to be taken into account on the question of relevance to the occasion. The appellant submitted that the primary judge relied on this Court's decision in Assaf v Skalkos (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-644; [2002] NSWCA 14 in support of her finding of lack of relevance to the occasion because of the language in the matter complained of, which her Honour found "conveys contempt and anger": [288]. It was submitted that her Honour erred in that finding. It was submitted to be inconsistent with her Honour's statement (at [299]) that: "Ms Chrysanthou in her oral submissions noted that language was irrelevant both to the occasion of privilege and to malice. I have accepted these submissions, although the language of the matter complained of is well outside the usual parameters."
4. The respondent contended that the test for relevance was that set out by Kirby J in Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; [2004] HCA 5 at [191] (drawn from Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309) that the publication cannot go beyond what was germane and reasonably appropriate for the occasion. Reasonably appropriate, the respondent submitted, does not mean not completely irrelevant, as urged by the appellant.
5. The respondent submitted that the imputations in relation to harassing and menacing conduct by the respondent were gratuitous and not connected or germane to the occasion of privilege. The email was a personal allegation against the respondent that he has been harassing and dealing in a menacing way towards her.
6. The respondent submitted that the appellant's publication was not motivated by her interest in the privileged occasion concerning management of the building or security of the mailboxes. Her email, it was submitted, was in response to the perceived threat against the appellant, made because she was a tenant, that she may be evicted. It was submitted that the appellant had given evidence that, in effect, it was necessary to raise the stakes and let the owners know that the respondent was attacking her as a tenant. This was said to be irrelevant to any occasion concerning the security of mailboxes within the Watermark building. It was conceded that this evidence was not expressly referred to in the judgment. However, it was submitted the evidence in relation to the appellant's motive related to the primary judge's findings that the nature of the communication and the status or position of the publisher rendered it irrelevant to the privileged occasion.

Consideration

1. To be relevant to the occasion for the purposes of common law qualified privilege, defamatory statements must be sufficiently connected to the privileged occasion to attract the defence: Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ at [27]-[30]; Gummow J at [191]-[196]. It was common ground on the appeal that this was an objective test and to the extent that the primary judge took into account subjective intention or purpose that that would be an error.
2. No narrow view should be taken of the pursuit of duty or interest in what was said on an occasion of privilege: Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298; [2011] HCA 30 at [22]. There, French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ dealt with a submission that a statement was extraneous to, and made outside of, the "umbrella of the applicable privilege". If this were correct, the privilege would not extend to protect the statement. Their Honours quoted the much relied upon passage of Parke B in Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 Cr M & R 181 at 193; 149 ER 1044 at 1050 for statements to attract the qualified privilege: "If fairly warranted by any reasonable occasion or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the common convenience and welfare of society; and the law has not restricted the right to make them within any narrow limits." (emphasis added in the High Court).
3. Their Honours in Cush v Dillon reiterated that Adam v Ward confirms that there may be limits to what may be said upon a subject on an occasion of qualified privilege and that those limits are to be tested by the connection of the statement to the subject, stating (at [22]): "It is not necessary to determine whether the descriptions given of irrelevant material in Adam v Ward vary as to the stringency with which relevance ought to be tested. The passage from Toogood v Spyring [(1834) 1 Cr M & R 181 at 193; 149 ER 1044 at 1050]] suggests that no narrow view should be taken of the pursuit of a duty or interest in what was said. To do so may unduly restrict the operation of the defence. More recently an issue of the kind here in question was stated in the joint judgment in Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [(2004) 218 CLR 366 at 378 [27]] to be 'whether the matter which defamed the appellant was sufficiently connected to the privileged occasion to attract the defence'. In that case the article in question incorrectly described the result of court proceedings, by identifying the plaintiff as the subject of findings of contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. In fact the party the subject of the findings was a company controlled by the plaintiff and his wife. In the joint judgment it was held that the error 'did not alter or reduce the connection between the privileged occasion and the defamatory matter.'"

Reply to attack

1. Given the conclusion already reached it is only necessary to address this issue on a contingent basis: Kuru v State of New South Wales (2008) 236 CLR 1; [2008] HCA 26. As publication of the response outside the forum of attack was not an express finding of the primary judge, there was also a notice of contention on this ground, in the following terms: "The defence of reply to attack qualified privilege ought to have been found to have failed because (in addition to the existing findings at PJ [295]) the reply to attack was also made to recipients who had never viewed the alleged attack."

Consideration

1. There are two issues arising in relation to the plea of reply to attack. First, did the respondent's email sent on 24 May 2017 constitute an "attack"? Secondly, if so, was the requirement that the attack and the reply be in the same forum met in this case?
2. In Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219; [1945] HCA 51 at 233-234 Dixon J said: "The foundation of the privilege is the necessity of allowing the party attacked free scope to place his case before the body whose judgment the attacking party has sought to affect. In this instance, it is assumed to be the entire public. The purpose is to prevent the charges operating to his prejudice. It may be conceded that to impugn the truth of the charges contained in the attack and even the general veracity of the attacker may be a proper exercise of the privilege, if it be commensurate with the occasion. If that is a question submitted to or an argument used before the body to whom the attacker has appealed and it is done bona fide for the purpose of vindication, the law will not allow the liability of the party attacked to depend on the truth or otherwise of defamatory statements he so makes by way of defence."
3. It is thus first necessary to determine if the appellant had been subject to an attack. The primary judge found that there was not an attack at all by the respondent because he was "exercising his duties as [C]hair of the strata committee" in sending the emails which constituted any relevant "attacks".
4. I think it tolerably clear that the email sent on 24 May 2017 by the respondent to the appellant using the signature "Chairman of the Strata Committee", and copying in the appellant's agent was a significant attack upon the appellant. The email is set out above at [6(11)].
5. The only point of the respondent copying in the agent was to alert the appellant's landlord to the dispute between the appellant and the respondent in his capacity as Chair of the strata committee. Any landlord receiving this email would be alarmed about the threat of being required to pay for replacement locks on all mailboxes. A communication in those terms to the landlord was obviously intended to bring pressure upon the tenant, the appellant, to conform to the respondent's demand about locking her mailbox. The finding that there was not an attack by the respondent because the respondent was "exercising his duties as [C]hair of the strata committee" does not address the correct question. The email could properly be characterised as an exercise of duty as Chair of the strata committee and still meet the description of an "attack".

Malice

1. It will be recalled that on a contingent basis (assuming common law qualified privilege was otherwise available) the primary judge found the plea was defeated by malice.

Submissions

1. The appellant noted the presumption that the publisher acted honestly and with a proper purpose: Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 57 at [96]-[97]. Malice is a serious matter and the principles set out in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 at 361 apply to such a finding: Hanrahan v Ainsworth (1990) 22 NSWLR 73 at 91A per Kirby P with whom Mahoney JA agreed at 98A. It was submitted that this was a heavy onus to discharge.
2. The appellant submitted that the primary judge should have found that the appellant felt that the respondent was trying to get her evicted and she decided that she needed to take steps to stop the respondent from his campaign of harassment. The appellant genuinely believed that the respondent's theory in relation to the letterbox that thieves could make a master key by studying the lock mechanism of an open mailbox was absurd and that his conduct amounted to threats and harassment.
3. The appellant gave evidence of her motive in publishing the matter complained of - to put an end to the harassing emails about the letterboxes from the respondent. That was in fact evident from the final words of the matter complained of, "Please stop". Paul Curby, the appellant's partner, assisted her to prepare the matter complained of and he gave evidence of their discussions and her beliefs during that preparation which the appellant submitted was wholly consistent with her evidence. Mr Curby was not cross-examined on these matters. The appellant then only sent the matter complained of to people who she understood were owners in the strata body (as opposed to tenants - who she did not include).
4. The appellant conceded that the emails were sarcastic. It was submitted that this was because the appellant thought that the respondent's views were ridiculous and that his conduct in pursuing her over the issue was harassment. This sarcasm did not prove malice.
5. It was submitted that, had the appellant in fact had the predominant motive of seeking to humiliate and insult the respondent then she would have sought to do so in a wider forum rather than limiting herself to the other owners in the block.
6. The primary judge found that the appellant knew that the respondent's emails to her were not harassing in nature and that she was not being harassed by him: at [300]. It was submitted that this was never put to the appellant, and was not pleaded as a particular of malice below , so was a finding not available to her Honour. Her Honour further made the finding of knowledge of falsity in the context of rejecting the appellant's and Mr Curby's evidence entirely when much of that evidence was unchallenged.

Consideration

1. Proof of ill-will, prejudice, bias, recklessness, lack of belief in truth or some improper motive is insufficient of itself to establish that malice actuated the publication: Roberts v Bass, per Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ at [74]-[104]; Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36 at [50]-[68] per Tobias JA with whom McColl and Basten JJA agreed; Cush v Dillon at [27].
2. The dispositive reasoning about malice is contained in paragraphs [300]-[306] of the primary judge's reasons. The finding of malice must be set aside. This is for the following reasons.
3. First, the finding at [300] that "the [appellant] was well aware of the falsity of her allegations" must be set aside. The primary judge noted at [272] that the respondent's counsel had foreshadowed that he would make a challenge to whether the appellant in fact held the opinions in the matter complained of but "he did not do so in terms". The failure by the respondent's counsel to pursue the foreshadowed challenge should have led the primary judge to conclude that a finding of knowledge of falsity could not be made.
4. Secondly, there were two specific parts of the more general finding that the appellant was well aware of the falsity of her allegations. The first, that the appellant knew that the respondent had not "consistently chosen the public option" cannot amount to a finding of malice in the absence of any finding which explained, at least, what "the public option" was understood by the appellant to mean. It is by no means clear what "the public option" meant and her Honour made no finding about that matter, let alone a finding about what the appellant understood by the term. Perhaps her Honour meant, as was pleaded, the "public email option". That too is an imprecise term and before any conclusions could be drawn a finding would need to be made about that matter. The only finding made, at [234], was a rejection of the appellant's evidence. That evidence, in which the cross-examiner attempted to have the appellant agree about how another person might understand her email, did not provide any basis for a finding of knowledge of falsity. The evidence was set out by the primary judge at [233]: "Q. No, my question was do you agree that the person reading your email, be that an owner of an apartment at Watermark, would see your email and then, if you say they would read the emails below, they'd have no idea whether those emails were sent to all the other owners besides them or whether it was sent to two or three owners or the committee or Mr Hitchman or anybody? Correct? A. I don't know what they think. Q. What I'm saying to you is when you drafted this email it would have been prudent, wouldn't it, to say, 'Here's a chain of emails which Mr Raynor sent to me personally and the last one he copied in my agent'? A. Well, I just copied - I just did exactly what Mr Raynor did. Q. Because - A. Mr Raynor didn't do that with his previous emails either. Q. Because do you agree the impression that you have created by this document is that those chain of emails could have been sent to anybody including - A. No, I - Q. --owners? A. No, I don't agree with that. Q. So do you agree with the proposition that the reader would just be left wondering who those emails were sent to? A. No, I don't agree with that. (T 251)"

Conclusions

1. It follows that the appellant is entitled to succeed in this appeal and the correct conclusion was that the defence of common law qualified privilege was established.

Damages

1. Before leaving this case I propose briefly to address the question of damages on the contingent basis that common law qualified privilege did not apply: Kuru v State of New South Wales. It will be recalled that $90,000 was awarded for general damages and $30,000 for aggravated damages. The appellant's complaint is that this award was manifestly excessive.
2. Sections 34 and 35 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) provide: "34 Damages to bear rational relationship to harm In determining the amount of damages to be awarded in any defamation proceedings, the court is to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by the plaintiff and the amount of damages awarded. 35 Damages for non-economic loss limited (1) Unless the court orders otherwise under subsection (2), the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss that may be awarded in defamation proceedings is $250,000 or any other amount adjusted in accordance with this section from time to time (the maximum damages amount) that is applicable at the time damages are awarded. (2) A court may order a defendant in defamation proceedings to pay damages for non-economic loss that exceed the maximum damages amount applicable at the time the order is made if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages. … [The present amount declared for the purposes of s 35 (1) is $407,500: Gazette No 55 of 31.5.2019, p 1665.] … (4) The amount declared is to be the amount applicable under subsection (1) (or that amount as last adjusted under this section) adjusted by the percentage change in the amount estimated by the Australian Statistician of the average weekly total earnings of full-time adults in Australia over the 4 quarters preceding the date of the declaration for which those estimates are, at that date, available. (5) An amount declared for the time being under this section applies to the exclusion of the amount of $250,000 or an amount previously adjusted under this section. … (8) A declaration made or published in the Gazette after 1 July in a year and specifying a date that is before the date it is made or published as the date from which the amount declared by the order is to apply has effect as from that specified date."
3. As the primary judge observed, there is, at least in this State, an unresolved issue about the correct interpretation of ss 34 and 35 of the Defamation Act. For my part, there is much to commend the view of the issue taken by Bell J when her Honour was a member of the Supreme Court in Attrill v Christie [2007] NSWSC 1386: "[44] I approach the matter on the basis that the maximum damages amount provided by s 35 is to be understood as fixing the outer limit of damages for non-economic loss (in cases which do not warrant an award of aggravated damages) and by analogy with the approach explained by Hayne awards for non-economic loss are to find a place within a range marked out in this way. This is not to say that an award of the maximum damages amount in a case not warranting an award of aggravated damages is to be reserved for the worst defamation imaginable."

Orders

1. For the foregoing reasons I propose the following orders: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders of Gibson DCJ made on 17 May 2019 and in lieu thereof order: 1. Further amended statement of claim dismissed; 2. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. 1. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
2. EMMETT AJA: The respondent, Mr Gary Raynor, brought proceedings for defamation in the District Court against the appellant, Ms Patricia Murray. Mr Raynor complained that an email sent by Ms Murray to Mr Raynor, the owners of units in an apartment building in Manly (the Building), and Ms Murray's real estate agent was defamatory of him. A judge of the District Court accepted Mr Raynor's contentions and directed a verdict in the sum of $120,000. Ms Murray has appealed to this Court from the orders made by the primary judge.
3. Ms Murray was a tenant of one of the apartments in the Building. Mr Raynor, who is the chairman of the Strata Committee for the Building, had sent a number of emails to Ms Murray, complaining that she left unlocked the letterbox in respect of the apartment occupied by her. Mr Raynor asserted that, by doing so, she increased the risk of theft from all letterboxes in the Building. In the email that was the subject of the proceedings, Ms Murray asserted that she had been harassed by Mr Raynor.
4. Relevantly, Ms Murray relied on the defence of qualified privilege at common law. She said that the relevant occasion was the exchange of correspondence concerning the locking of her letterbox and that the communication about which Mr Raynor complained was relevant to that occasion. The primary judge found that there was relevantly an occasion of privilege and it is clear that all of the communications were relevant to that occasion. However, her Honour found that the matter complained of was motivated by malice on the part of Ms Murray and, accordingly, that the defence of qualified privilege was not available.
5. There are several deficiencies in the reasoning of the primary judge that led to the conclusion that the matter complained of was motivated by malice. I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the proposed reasons of Payne JA for allowing the appeal. I agree with his Honour's reasons and the orders proposed by him.

Endnote

1. McCallum J has taken a different view: see, for example, Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1091 at [127].

Amendments 13 November 2019 - 88 - Internal reference amended 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: 13 November 2019