Gibbons v Duffell [1932] HCA 26

Gibbons v Duffell [1932] HCA 26

A report by a police inspector to a superior officer, even if made in the course of official duty and containing defamatory statements about a subordinate, is not subject to absolute privilege—rather, it is subject only to qualified privilege, which means the protection is lost if malice is proven. The functions and organization of the police do not justify extending absolute privilege as in the case of reports concerning military or naval discipline.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gibbons; Defendant: Duffell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Privilege, Libel, Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege
Defamation Torts Privilege Libel Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gibbons

Plaintiff

Duffell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a report by an inspector of police to a superior officer containing defamatory statements about a subordinate is protected by absolute privilege
  2. 2 Whether such report attracts only qualified privilege, defeasible on proof of malice

Ratio Decidendi

A report by a police inspector to a superior officer, even if made in the course of official duty and containing defamatory statements about a subordinate, is not subject to absolute privilege—rather, it is subject only to qualified privilege, which means the protection is lost if malice is proven. The functions and organization of the police do not justify extending absolute privilege as in the case of reports concerning military or naval discipline.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Supreme Court discharged
  • Special case answered: Publication is not the subject of absolute privilege