Bennette v Cohen [2007] NSWSC 739

Bennette v Cohen [2007] NSWSC 739

The defendant established that the occasions of publication were protected by common law qualified privilege, as the statements were made at public meetings where the audience had a reciprocal interest in the subject. The defendant did not establish the substantial truth of the imputations nor that the publications were not likely to cause harm. The imputations were found to be expressions of comment, not fact. The privilege defence was not defeated by malice, given the predominant purpose was to rally support for Mr Mackay against litigation brought by the plaintiff, not to pursue a purpose unconnected to the protected interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment After Trial With Jury and Final Argument on Defences
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'qualified Privilege' 'comment' 'public Interest' 'truth as Defence' 'damages']
['tort Law' 'defamation'] ['defamation' 'qualified Privilege' 'comment' 'public Interest' 'truth as Defence' 'damages']

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 / Judgment After Trial With Jury and Final Argument on Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the words spoken by the defendant at public meetings were defamatory of the plaintiff' 'Whether the defences of substantial truth, qualified privilege, contextual truth, comment, and unlikelihood of harm are established' 'Whether the defendant acted with malice so as to defeat qualified privilege']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established that the occasions of publication were protected by common law qualified privilege, as the statements were made at public meetings where the audience had a reciprocal interest in the subject. The defendant did not establish the substantial truth of the imputations nor that the publications were not likely to cause harm. The imputations were found to be expressions of comment, not fact. The privilege defence was not defeated by malice, given the predominant purpose was to rally support for Mr Mackay against litigation brought by the plaintiff, not to pursue a purpose unconnected to the protected interest.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the defendant.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs." 'Exhibits to be retained for a period of 28 days.']