SMEC Holdings Ltd v Boniface [2007] NSWSC 1402

SMEC Holdings Ltd v Boniface [2007] NSWSC 1402

The defendant failed to establish qualified privilege because, except for the first publication to Mr Bultitude, the recipients were not shown to have the necessary reciprocal interest or duty, and in any event the defendant did not prove bona fides and the circumstances supported an inference of malice. The comment defence failed for every imputation because the imputations were either statements of fact or were not based on accurately stated proper material for comment. The s 13 defence failed for all publications except the seventh, because the serious repeated allegations were likely to cause harm, but the seventh publication to Mr Busbridge and its limited republication to the SMEC...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Determination of Pleaded Defences and Damages After a Contested Jury Trial Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 and a Limited Successful Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Verdicts for the plaintiffs on the specified publications, verdict for the defendant on the seventh publication concerning the second plaintiff, and costs ordered against the defendant.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege at Common Law' 'comment' 'unlikelihood of Harm Under S 13 of the Defamation Act 1974' 'defamatory Imputations' 'publication by Email' 'aggravated Damages' 'abuse of Process']
['defamation' 'common Law' 'damages'] ['qualified Privilege at Common Law' 'comment' 'unlikelihood of Harm Under S 13 of the Defamation Act 1974' 'defamatory Imputations' 'publication by Email' 'aggravated Damages' 'abuse of Process']

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 / Determination of Pleaded Defences and Damages After a Contested Jury Trial Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974 and a Limited Successful Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant established common law qualified privilege for any of the defamatory publications.' 'Whether the defences were defeated by lack of bona fides or malice.' 'Whether the defamatory imputations were comment rather than statements of fact and were based on proper material for comment.' 'Whether the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiffs were unlikely to suffer harm under s 13 of the Defamation Act 1974.' 'What damages should be awarded for the defamatory publications where defences failed.' 'Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process brought for a purpose other than vindication of reputation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish qualified privilege because, except for the first publication to Mr Bultitude, the recipients were not shown to have the necessary reciprocal interest or duty, and in any event the defendant did not prove bona fides and the circumstances supported an inference of malice. The comment defence failed for every imputation because the imputations were either statements of fact or were not based on accurately stated proper material for comment. The s 13 defence failed for all publications except the seventh, because the serious repeated allegations were likely to cause harm, but the seventh publication to Mr Busbridge and its limited republication to the SMEC...

Court Disposition

Verdicts for the plaintiffs on the specified publications, verdict for the defendant on the seventh publication concerning the second plaintiff, and costs ordered against the defendant.

Orders

  • ['The first plaintiff: in respect of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth publications respectively, verdict for the first plaintiff in the sums of $75,000, $100,000, $80,000 and $120,000.' 'The second plaintiff: in respect of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth publications respectively, verdict for...