Feldman v Polaris Media Pty Ltd as trustee of The Polaris Media Trust trading as The Australian Jewish News (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1035

Feldman v Polaris Media Pty Ltd as trustee of The Polaris Media Trust trading as The Australian Jewish News (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1035

The publications conveyed the plaintiff's pleaded reprehensible or shocking ignorance imputations, but the first article, second article and editorial were defended by honest opinion because the defamatory senses were expressions of opinion on matters of public interest based on substantially true proper material. The third article's shockingly ignorant imputation was not defended by honest opinion because it was conveyed as fact, but it was substantially true: in 2002 sexual touching of a child's genitals was criminal, the plaintiff gave evidence that he did not know that as a fact, and that ignorance was shocking given his positions and views on reporting child sexual abuse. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Principal Judgment After Trial Without a Jury
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
['defamatory Meaning' 'honest Opinion' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'fair Report' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'royal Commission Reporting']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['defamatory Meaning' 'honest Opinion' 'justification' 'contextual Truth' 'fair Report' 'statutory Qualified Privilege' 'malice' 'royal Commission Reporting']

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 Action / Principal Judgment After Trial Without a Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the four articles and editorial conveyed the defamatory imputations pleaded by the plaintiff.' 'Whether the defence of honest opinion under s 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) was made out.' "Whether the defence of justification under s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) was made out for the third article's shockingly ignorant imputation." 'Whether, if necessary, the defences of contextual truth, fair report and statutory qualified privilege would have been made out.' 'Whether the defendants were actuated by malice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The publications conveyed the plaintiff's pleaded reprehensible or shocking ignorance imputations, but the first article, second article and editorial were defended by honest opinion because the defamatory senses were expressions of opinion on matters of public interest based on substantially true proper material. The third article's shockingly ignorant imputation was not defended by honest opinion because it was conveyed as fact, but it was substantially true: in 2002 sexual touching of a child's genitals was criminal, the plaintiff gave evidence that he did not know that as a fact, and that ignorance was shocking given his positions and views on reporting child sexual abuse. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants']