SMEC Holdings & Ors v Glen Boniface [2005] NSWSC 1099

SMEC Holdings & Ors v Glen Boniface [2005] NSWSC 1099

Taking the plaintiffs' case at its highest, the combination of direct evidence, common themes, similarities in content and style, opportunity, motive and other circumstantial evidence was capable of supporting a jury finding that the defendant published all nine matters complained of. For the first matter complained of, identification could be established by circumstantial evidence, including the company context, Mr Bultitude's directorship, the fact that the second and third plaintiffs were the only board members named Peter and Ross, and Mr Bultitude's delivery of the emails to the second plaintiff; direct evidence from Mr Bultitude was not essential.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action; S 7 a Trial / Ruling on Defendant's Application Pursuant to Part 34 Rule 8(2) of the Supreme Court Rules After the Conclusion of the Plaintiffs' Evidence
Outcome
The defendant's application was rejected; the Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence of publication and identification to go to the jury.
Legal Topics
['publication' 'identification' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'part 34 Rule 8(2) Application' 'circumstantial Evidence' 's 7 a Jury Trial']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['publication' 'identification' 'sufficiency of Evidence' 'part 34 Rule 8(2) Application' 'circumstantial Evidence' 's 7 a Jury Trial']

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 Action; S 7 a Trial / Ruling on Defendant's Application Pursuant to Part 34 Rule 8(2) of the Supreme Court Rules After the Conclusion of the Plaintiffs' Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, taking the plaintiffs' case at its highest, there was evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that the defendant published the matters complained of." 'Whether there was sufficient evidence that the first matter complained of was published of and concerning the second and third plaintiffs, despite the recipient Bill Bultitude not giving evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the plaintiffs' case at its highest, the combination of direct evidence, common themes, similarities in content and style, opportunity, motive and other circumstantial evidence was capable of supporting a jury finding that the defendant published all nine matters complained of. For the first matter complained of, identification could be established by circumstantial evidence, including the company context, Mr Bultitude's directorship, the fact that the second and third plaintiffs were the only board members named Peter and Ross, and Mr Bultitude's delivery of the emails to the second plaintiff; direct evidence from Mr Bultitude was not essential.

Court Disposition

The defendant's application was rejected; the Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence of publication and identification to go to the jury.

Orders

  • ['There was sufficient evidence of publication in relation to each matter complained of to go to the jury.' 'There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon the issue of identification for the first matter complained of.']