Lucire v Parmegiani & Anor [2012] NSWCA 86

Lucire v Parmegiani & Anor [2012] NSWCA 86

The making of the complaint to the NSW Medical Board is not covered by the absolute privilege defence in Schedule 1, clause 15(1)(a) of the Defamation Act 2005, as the clause does not extend to the making of complaints but only to their assessment or referral. Absolute privilege was not available at statute or at common law on the facts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['absolute Privilege' 'statutory Interpretation' 'qualified Privilege' 'defamation in Professional Complaints']
['defamation'] ['absolute Privilege' 'statutory Interpretation' 'qualified Privilege' 'defamation in Professional Complaints']

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

Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the letter of complaint to the NSW Medical Board was published on an occasion of absolute privilege under statute or common law' "Whether 'assessment or referral' in Defamation Act 2005 includes the making of the complaint itself"]

Ratio Decidendi

The making of the complaint to the NSW Medical Board is not covered by the absolute privilege defence in Schedule 1, clause 15(1)(a) of the Defamation Act 2005, as the clause does not extend to the making of complaints but only to their assessment or referral. Absolute privilege was not available at statute or at common law on the facts.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Orders of Gibson DCJ made on 28 May 2010 set aside.' "First respondent's notice of motion dismissed." "Respondents to pay appellant's costs of the motion." "First respondent's cross-summons for leave to cross-appeal dismissed." "Respondents to pay appellant's costs of the...