Haddon v Forsyth [2011] NSWSC 123

Haddon v Forsyth [2011] NSWSC 123

The court found that three of the five pleaded imputations (sexual harassment by inappropriate sexual topics, sexual harassment by inappropriate touching and kissing, and conduct warranting complaints of unwanted sexual advances) were conveyed and were defamatory. The defences of substantial truth and qualified privilege at common law and under s30 succeeded, as the conduct proven amounted to sexual harassment as understood by the community, and recipients had the required reciprocal interest. The honest opinion defence failed as the communications were statements of fact and were not on a matter of public interest. Malice was not established. As a result, the case failed and verdict was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Principal Judgment After Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Verdict for the defendants; plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['substantial Truth Defence' 'contextual Truth' 'honest Opinion' 'qualified Privilege (common Law and Statutory)' 'malice' 'sexual Harassment Definition' 'imputations and Their Meanings' 'defamatory Publication']
['defamation' 'torts'] ['substantial Truth Defence' 'contextual Truth' 'honest Opinion' 'qualified Privilege (common Law and Statutory)' 'malice' 'sexual Harassment Definition' 'imputations and Their Meanings' 'defamatory Publication']

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 / Principal Judgment After Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the emails conveyed the alleged defamatory imputations to an ordinary reasonable reader' 'Whether the imputations, if conveyed, were defamatory' 'Whether the defences of substantial truth, contextual truth, honest opinion, and qualified privilege succeed' 'Whether publication was actuated by malice']

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that three of the five pleaded imputations (sexual harassment by inappropriate sexual topics, sexual harassment by inappropriate touching and kissing, and conduct warranting complaints of unwanted sexual advances) were conveyed and were defamatory. The defences of substantial truth and qualified privilege at common law and under s30 succeeded, as the conduct proven amounted to sexual harassment as understood by the community, and recipients had the required reciprocal interest. The honest opinion defence failed as the communications were statements of fact and were not on a matter of public interest. Malice was not established. As a result, the case failed and verdict was...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendants; plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the defendants.' "The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs."]