Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine; Brown v Mundine [2012] NSWCA 195

Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine; Brown v Mundine [2012] NSWCA 195

The defence of qualified privilege failed both at common law and under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) because publication was to the wide readership of the newspaper and not to a group with reciprocal interest; publisher's conduct was unreasonable because no attempt was made to verify information or obtain the respondent's side. Applications to extend time to file appeals refused due to lack of merit and prejudice to respondent outweighing prejudice to appellants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; Determination of Merits of Appeal
Outcome
Applications for extension of time to file Notices of Appeal refused, appellants to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'extension of Time' 'jury Trial' 'identification']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['qualified Privilege' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'common Law Qualified Privilege' 'extension of Time' 'jury Trial' 'identification']

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

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; Determination of Merits of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether appellants established defence of qualified privilege at common law' 'Whether appellants established statutory defence of qualified privilege under s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether time to file Notice of Appeal should be extended']

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of qualified privilege failed both at common law and under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) because publication was to the wide readership of the newspaper and not to a group with reciprocal interest; publisher's conduct was unreasonable because no attempt was made to verify information or obtain the respondent's side. Applications to extend time to file appeals refused due to lack of merit and prejudice to respondent outweighing prejudice to appellants.

Court Disposition

Applications for extension of time to file Notices of Appeal refused, appellants to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ["Refuse appellants' applications for extension of time to file Notices of Appeal." "Appellants to pay respondent's costs of applications to extend time and hearing of appeal proceedings generally."]