Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1074

Daniels v State of New South Wales (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1074

The question whether the conduct of a publisher in publishing allegedly defamatory matter was reasonable in the circumstances under s 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is a question of fact and not a question which, at general law, is required to be determined by the judge. Accordingly, if disputed, that element of the statutory qualified privilege defence is for the jury under s 22(2) of the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Jury Trial; Publication of Reasons for Conclusion Reached Regarding Questions for the Jury After Proceedings Were Resolved by Agreement
Outcome
The proceedings were resolved by agreement and the jury was discharged; the Court published reasons concluding that any dispute about reasonableness under s 30(1)(c) would be a question for the jury.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'functions of Judge and Jury' 'reasonableness Under S 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'functions of Judge and Jury' 'reasonableness Under S 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (nsw)']

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 / Jury Trial; Publication of Reasons for Conclusion Reached Regarding Questions for the Jury After Proceedings Were Resolved by Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, for the statutory qualified privilege defence under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the element in s 30(1)(c) requiring that the publisher's conduct in publishing the allegedly defamatory matter was reasonable in the circumstances should be determined by the jury." 'Whether s 22(5)(b) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) reserves the question of reasonableness under s 30(1)(c) to the judicial officer as an issue determined by the judge at general law.']

Ratio Decidendi

The question whether the conduct of a publisher in publishing allegedly defamatory matter was reasonable in the circumstances under s 30(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) is a question of fact and not a question which, at general law, is required to be determined by the judge. Accordingly, if disputed, that element of the statutory qualified privilege defence is for the jury under s 22(2) of the Act.

Court Disposition

The proceedings were resolved by agreement and the jury was discharged; the Court published reasons concluding that any dispute about reasonableness under s 30(1)(c) would be a question for the jury.

Orders

  • ['Reasons published for conclusion reached regarding questions for the jury.']