Coles Myer Limited v Webster; Coles Myer Limited v Thompson [2009] NSWCA 299

Coles Myer Limited v Webster; Coles Myer Limited v Thompson [2009] NSWCA 299

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find that Ms Hart deliberately invented allegations that the plaintiffs had fraudulently attempted to obtain gift vouchers, rather than making a bona fide mistake. On that basis the publications to police were not protected by qualified privilege, and in any event malice was established. Her deliberate false accusations, active role in identifying the plaintiffs, and insistence on their guilt went beyond merely giving information to police and caused or procured the detention, notwithstanding that the police acted lawfully. The appeals were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeals From District Court Judgments in Claims for Defamation and False Imprisonment / Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal in Webster Granted; Both Appeals Determined
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'vicarious Liability' 'police Detention Following Information From Informant' 'causing or Procuring Detention']
['torts' 'defamation' 'false Imprisonment'] ['qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'vicarious Liability' 'police Detention Following Information From Informant' 'causing or Procuring Detention']

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

Appeals From District Court Judgments in Claims for Defamation and False Imprisonment / Court of Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal in Webster Granted; Both Appeals Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence of qualified privilege applied to defamatory remarks published by Ms Hart to police officers.' 'Whether Ms Hart acted with malice in publishing allegations about the plaintiffs.' "Whether Ms Hart caused or procured the plaintiffs' false imprisonment by police." 'Whether an adverse inference concerning documents not produced pursuant to subpoena affected the result.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find that Ms Hart deliberately invented allegations that the plaintiffs had fraudulently attempted to obtain gift vouchers, rather than making a bona fide mistake. On that basis the publications to police were not protected by qualified privilege, and in any event malice was established. Her deliberate false accusations, active role in identifying the plaintiffs, and insistence on their guilt went beyond merely giving information to police and caused or procured the detention, notwithstanding that the police acted lawfully. The appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted to Coles in regard to the judgment in the case brought by Mr Webster.' 'Both appeals dismissed with costs.']