Chow v Un [2017] NSWDC 254

Chow v Un [2017] NSWDC 254

The pamphlet conveyed the defamatory imputations found by the Court against both plaintiffs. The defendant published it by handing copies indiscriminately to persons in the foyer, including persons who were not members of Goon Yee Tong, and his denials of that publication were rejected. The publications were not protected by common law qualified privilege because the matter was not sufficiently connected with any protected occasion and was irrational, intemperate and excessively published; in any event the defendant was actuated by malice. The statutory qualified privilege defence under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) also failed because the defendant did not establish reasonableness and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was awarded $95,000 and the second plaintiff was awarded $65,000. Costs were reserved, with liberty to apply concerning interest and costs.
Legal Topics
['extent of Publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege Under S 30 Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'malice' 'damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'mitigation of Damages']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['extent of Publication' 'defamatory Imputations' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege Under S 30 Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)' 'malice' 'damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'mitigation of Damages']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant published the matter complained of in the manner alleged in the statement of claim.' 'Whether the matter complained of bore the imputations pleaded in the statement of claim and whether those imputations were defamatory.' 'Whether any publication was made on an occasion of common law qualified privilege, including whether there was the necessary reciprocity of interest and whether the defendant was actuated by malice.' "Whether statutory qualified privilege under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) applied, including whether recipients had an interest or apparent interest, whether publication was in furtherance of that interest, whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable, and whether the defendant was actuated by malice." 'What damages should be awarded, including aggravated damages and any mitigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pamphlet conveyed the defamatory imputations found by the Court against both plaintiffs. The defendant published it by handing copies indiscriminately to persons in the foyer, including persons who were not members of Goon Yee Tong, and his denials of that publication were rejected. The publications were not protected by common law qualified privilege because the matter was not sufficiently connected with any protected occasion and was irrational, intemperate and excessively published; in any event the defendant was actuated by malice. The statutory qualified privilege defence under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) also failed because the defendant did not establish reasonableness and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was awarded $95,000 and the second plaintiff was awarded $65,000. Costs were reserved, with liberty to apply concerning interest and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the first plaintiff for $95,000.' 'Judgment for the second plaintiff for $65,000.' 'Costs reserved, with liberty to apply concerning interest and costs.' 'Exhibits retained for 28 days.']