Harrigan v Jones [2001] NSWSC 623

Harrigan v Jones [2001] NSWSC 623

The defendant failed to establish any defence. The statistics relied on were inadequate to prove that the plaintiff was biased or favoured Brisbane or ex-Super League teams. Although the imputations were conveyed as comment, the comment was not based on proper material in a way that could reasonably support the opinions of bias or favouritism. The defendant's conclusions did not follow logically, fairly or reasonably from the information obtained, so his conduct was not reasonable for qualified privilege. The publication was broad and the imputations serious, so s 13 was not made out. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to damages totalling $90,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Trial of Defences and Damages Following a Preliminary Hearing Under Section 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['justification' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'unlikelihood of Harm' 'damages' 'defamatory Imputations' 'public Interest']
['defamation' 'torts'] ['justification' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'unlikelihood of Harm' 'damages' 'defamatory Imputations' 'public Interest']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Trial of Defences and Damages Following a Preliminary Hearing Under Section 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant proved substantial truth under Defamation Act 1974, s 15 for imputations that the plaintiff refereed in a biased manner and favoured ex-Super League teams or Brisbane when awarding penalties.' 'Whether the defamatory imputations were conveyed as comment or statements of fact, and whether any comment was based on proper material for comment under Defamation Act 1974, ss 30 and 32.' "Whether the defendant's conduct in publishing the matter was reasonable for the purposes of qualified privilege under Defamation Act 1974, s 22(1)(c)." 'Whether the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was not likely to suffer harm under Defamation Act 1974, s 13.' 'What damages should be awarded for the defamatory imputations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish any defence. The statistics relied on were inadequate to prove that the plaintiff was biased or favoured Brisbane or ex-Super League teams. Although the imputations were conveyed as comment, the comment was not based on proper material in a way that could reasonably support the opinions of bias or favouritism. The defendant's conclusions did not follow logically, fairly or reasonably from the information obtained, so his conduct was not reasonable for qualified privilege. The publication was broad and the imputations serious, so s 13 was not made out. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to damages totalling $90,000.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $60,000 in relation to the first imputation and $15,000 in relation to each of the second and third imputations.' 'I reserve the questions of interest and costs until a date to be fixed.']