Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3) [2007] NSWDC 268

Hennessy v Lynch (No. 3) [2007] NSWDC 268

The first, second and fourth publications were not protected by s.13 because their circumstances did not exclude a real chance or possibility of harm, particularly given the recipient's early lack of knowledge of the plaintiff, the seriousness and repetition of imputations about bankruptcy and creditworthiness, and the defendant having been put on notice of falsity. The third publication was protected by s.13 because, in context, it was a drunken abusive exchange during a confrontation with a long-term employee who knew the plaintiff and largely discounted the allegation, so there was no real chance or possibility of harm. Damages were modest because each publication was oral and to one...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings Concerning Oral Publications / Judgment After Section 7 a Jury Findings, on Section 13 Defence and Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on the first, second and fourth publications; judgment for the defendant on the third publication.
Legal Topics
['slander' 'defence of Unlikelihood of Harm' 'triviality' 'damages' 'aggravated Compensatory Damages']
['tort' 'defamation'] ['slander' 'defence of Unlikelihood of Harm' 'triviality' 'damages' 'aggravated Compensatory 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

Civil Defamation Proceedings Concerning Oral Publications / Judgment After Section 7 a Jury Findings, on Section 13 Defence and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defence under s.13 of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) applied to any of the four oral publications.' 'What damages, including any aggravated compensatory damages, should be awarded for the defamatory publications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first, second and fourth publications were not protected by s.13 because their circumstances did not exclude a real chance or possibility of harm, particularly given the recipient's early lack of knowledge of the plaintiff, the seriousness and repetition of imputations about bankruptcy and creditworthiness, and the defendant having been put on notice of falsity. The third publication was protected by s.13 because, in context, it was a drunken abusive exchange during a confrontation with a long-term employee who knew the plaintiff and largely discounted the allegation, so there was no real chance or possibility of harm. Damages were modest because each publication was oral and to one...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on the first, second and fourth publications; judgment for the defendant on the third publication.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in relation to the first publication (on or about 6 October 2001) in the sum of $1,000.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff on the second publication (on or about 14 October 2002) in the sum of $5,000.' 'Judgment for the defendant in relation to the third publication (on or about 18 December...