BUTTON v LONDON [1991] NSWCA 39

BUTTON v LONDON [1991] NSWCA 39

There was sufficient evidence to identify the plaintiffs as the persons defamed, the imputations as found were rightly made, the defences raised by the defendant failed (truth, public interest, qualified privilege, s13, comment), and the damages awarded were not excessive; thus, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and the judgment affirmed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Button; Defendant: London
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Identification in Defamation, Imputations, Truth and Public Interest Defence, Qualified Privilege, Defence of Comment, Quantum of Damages, Requirement for Reasons
Defamation Identification in Defamation Imputations Truth and Public Interest Defence Qualified Privilege Defence of Comment Quantum of Damages Requirement for Reasons

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Button

Plaintiff

London

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were sufficiently identified in the publication
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded imputations were made by the publication
  3. 3 Whether the defences of truth, public interest, qualified privilege, s13 defence, and comment were established

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence to identify the plaintiffs as the persons defamed, the imputations as found were rightly made, the defences raised by the defendant failed (truth, public interest, qualified privilege, s13, comment), and the damages awarded were not excessive; thus, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed and the judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs