ZARTH v WILLIAMSON & ORS [2006] NSWCA 246

ZARTH v WILLIAMSON & ORS [2006] NSWCA 246

The claimants failed to establish either common law qualified privilege or statutory absolute privilege applied to their publications. The judge's findings were open on the facts and involved no relevant legal or procedural error. Arguments regarding errors in the conduct of the trial, the necessity for a jury finding on publication, and excessive damages were without substance. Leave to appeal was therefore refused as there were poor prospects of success and no substantial departure from due administration of justice.

Parties
Claimant: Henry Zarth; Claimant: Karen Zarth; Opponent: Neil Stewart Williamson; Opponent: Ronald William Winter; Opponent: Anthony Orazio Brischetto
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (defamation) / Post Trial, Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision
Outcome
Dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Malice, Conduct of Trial, Damages
Defamation Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege Malice Conduct of Trial 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Zarth

Claimant

Karen Zarth

Claimant

Neil Stewart Williamson

Opponent

Ronald William Winter

Opponent

Anthony Orazio Brischetto

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (defamation) / Post Trial, Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether common law qualified privilege was available in respect of the publications
  2. 2 Whether statutory absolute privilege under s.17J Defamation Act applied to communications with Legal Services Commission
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in the conduct of the trial including order of addressing malice and evidence procedural matters

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish either common law qualified privilege or statutory absolute privilege applied to their publications. The judge's findings were open on the facts and involved no relevant legal or procedural error. Arguments regarding errors in the conduct of the trial, the necessity for a jury finding on publication, and excessive damages were without substance. Leave to appeal was therefore refused as there were poor prospects of success and no substantial departure from due administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Dismissed

Orders

  • Both Summonses for leave to appeal dismissed with costs