Murray v Raynor [2019] NSWCA 274

Murray v Raynor [2019] NSWCA 274

The appeal was allowed because the occasion of qualified privilege was the communication to residents of Watermark on the topic of management of the building including mailbox security; the matter complained of was sufficiently connected and germane to that occasion; and the respondent failed to establish malice. The primary judge's contrary findings involved failure to identify the privileged occasion, conflation of relevance with malice, unsupported factual findings, unfair credit reasoning, and reliance on matters outside the pleaded malice case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Judgment [2019] NSWDC 189
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['common Law Qualified Privilege' 'privileged Occasion' 'relevance to Privileged Occasion' 'reply to Attack' 'malice' 'damages for Defamation']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['common Law Qualified Privilege' 'privileged Occasion' 'relevance to Privileged Occasion' 'reply to Attack' 'malice' 'damages for Defamation']

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 Appeal / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Judgment [2019] NSWDC 189

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the defence of common law qualified privilege applied.' 'Whether the defamatory statements were sufficiently connected and germane to the privileged occasion.' 'Whether the respondent established malice sufficient to defeat qualified privilege.' 'Whether reply to attack qualified privilege applied where the reply was sent to a different body from the alleged attack.' 'Whether the damages award of $120,000 was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the occasion of qualified privilege was the communication to residents of Watermark on the topic of management of the building including mailbox security; the matter complained of was sufficiently connected and germane to that occasion; and the respondent failed to establish malice. The primary judge's contrary findings involved failure to identify the privileged occasion, conflation of relevance with malice, unsupported factual findings, unfair credit reasoning, and reliance on matters outside the pleaded malice case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' "Set aside the orders of Gibson DCJ made on 17 May 2019 and in lieu thereof order: Further amended statement of claim dismissed; Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs." "Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal."]