Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
An employer may be:
Personally liable in negligence to injured employees and third parties;
Vicariously liable to employees and third parties injured by employees;
Liable otherwise e.g. breach of statutory duty.
Common Employment
Doctrine did not apply where the master had breached a personal duty of care
Therefore, as the courts became more sympathetic to servants the notion of a personal duty was
expanded.
Contributed to the development of workers compensation legislation.
Common employment as a defence was legislatively abolished in the mid 20th century.
The Employment Category
The duty is owed through precedent, an established duty category.
It is the content and scope of that duty which may be contentious.
Traditionally the duty owed has been divided into 3 aspects:
Proper plant, appliances and works;
Competent selection of staff (established in Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning);
Safe system of work.
NOTE:
There are no fixed technical rules and decisions in similar cases are only a guide.
Need to balance the relevant factors because the risk is usually foreseeable.
Expert evidence is not conclusive.
Re the nature of the relationship compare:
Raimondo v. State of SA (1959)
Bankstown Foundry v. Braistina (1986)
Bus v. SCC (1989)
Wilson v Tyneside
Employer not liable because:
P experienced window cleaner.
D did issue warnings in writing and orally.
Duty not so high when premises not Ds.
P had cleaned those windows before and knew them to be unsafe.
Checking was not the trade practice.
Halleys Case
Employer liable when employee lost both legs below the knees.
Trainee shunter (17 years old).
Given no specific warnings.
Caused by his enthusiasm and zeal to do the job.
Since introduced a training programme.
Provides For:
Periodic payments for loss of earnings for a specified period.
Then further reduced until cuts off.
Hospital and medical expenses.
Death benefit for dependants.
Lump sum for the loss of a bodily function or part.
For example:
loss of nose $25 775
loss of smell $12 600
paraplegia $92 790
quadriplegia $103 100
genitals $50 300
loss of kidney $10 310
loss of fertility $15 465
loss of sexual function $30930
Generally:
An injured employee has 2 avenues of compensation:
Workers compensation.
Common law claim for damages less workers compensation.
Recent changes have included:
Caps on the amounts of damages.
Complete bans on employees access to Common Law.
Restrictions on common law actions:
Re types of compensation recoverable.
Re making choice between workers comp and the common law.
Substantive and procedural modification of common law.
Kondis v. STA
Kondis was Ds employee and injured by the negligence of an employee of an independent
contractor.
D cannot be held vicariously liable for the nelgligence of the employee because he was not Ds
employee.
D was nevertheless liable because it was in breach of its duty on the basis that it was a non-
delegable duty and so D was required to ensure that care was taken by the independent contractor
and its employees.
Therefore:
If an employee is injured through his or her own negligence then the employer may be liable
because:
It breached its personal duty of care e.g. failure to provide a safe system of work =>
Braistinas Case
Note: simply hiring the employee will not constitute a breach of the duty.
If an employee is injured by the negligence of another employee then the employer may be liable
because:
It breached its own duty of care (e.g. failure to provide a safe system of work).
The employer is vicariously liable for the actions of the other employee e.g. Bus v. SCC
If an employee is injured by the negligence of an independent contractor then the employer may
be liable because:
It breached its own personal duty of care e.g. failure to provide a safe system of work.
It breached its non-delegable duty of care e.g. to set up a safe system of work e.g Kondis
v. STA
Consider...
What happens when the employer and the employee are arguably the same person?
Nichol v. Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd
P was director of D who was injured whilst employed by D
Held that D not liable to the extent that P was responsible for the design of the
system of work.
This found to be 40%
Compare WorkCover, where directors are excluded from recovery.
Non-delegable Duties
Examples of other recognised categories:
Schools to students =>Commonwealth v. Introvigne
Hospitals to patients => Samios v. Repatriation Hospital
Hazardous activities on the Ds land
Stevens v. Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd
Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones
This remains a developing area:
Northern Sandblasting v. Harris
Stevens v. Brodribb
Brodribb ran a logging operation which was overseen by a bush boss, an employee of Brodribb.
Stevens and Gray both worked for Brodribb when Stevens injured by Gray.
Gray was found negligent and liable to Stevens by he wants the deep pockets of Brodribb.
ALTERNATIVES
Stevens was an employee and Brodribb breached its personal duty of care i.e. failure to establish a
safe system of work.
Gray was an employee, so Brodribb was vicariously liable for Grays negligence.
If Stevens was an independent contractor then Brodribb breached a general duty of care owed to
Stevens and all others on the logging site.
If Gray was an independent contractor Brodribb owed Stevens a non-delegable duty of care to
ensure that Gray took care.
Finally argued that the common law imposed strict liability where the defendent was engaged in
an inherently dangerous activity.
HELD:
Neither Stevens nor Gray were employees.
In all the circumstances of the case there was a duty of care owed but Brodribb was not in breach
of that duty (Deane J dissenting)
The majority held that it was not a non-delegable duty.
There is in Australian law no strict liability for extra-hazardous activities.
Mason J wrote the leading judgement in Kondis and distinguished that case in Brodribb:
Brodribb did not have the requisite control or supervision of the actions of Gray.
Stevens could not be said to reasonably expect that Brodribb would see to it, that due
care was exercised in the loading operation by Gray at p33.
Northern Sandblasting
Defective earthing system and when electrician was negligent in repairing stove, water pipe
system became live.
Tenants child touched tap, was seriously injured and subsequently died.
Electrician liable but seeking the deep pockets of the landlord.
Sued landlord for:
Breach of statutory duty under tenancy legislation.
Breach of the landlords personal duty because of the faulty earthing system and
defective stove.
Negligence on the basis that the landlord owed a non-delegable duty of care in relation
to the repair of the stove.
1. and 3. as above.
Preferred Approach
1. Relationship of Employer/ee
Tests:
Traditional Test:
Control test - what to do and how to do it.
Modern developments:
Lawful authority to command so far as there is scope for it:
Zuijs v. Wirth Brothers
Must look to the totality of the relationship between the parties.
Multi-factor approach: Stevens v. Brodribb Sawmilling
Multi-factor Test:
Indemnities
Defences:
ICI v. Shatwell
Contributory negligence
Volenti non fit injuria
Delegation of statutory authority (not always refered to as a defence)
JIE not available
DAMAGES
The Categories
Organisation of Heads
Special:
past hospital and medical (to date of judgement)
past loss of earning capacity (to date of judgement)
General:
future hospital and medical;
future loss of earning capacity;
past and future gratuitous services;
pain and suffering;
loss of expectation of life;
loss of amenities or enjoyment of life.
Pecuniary:
past (point of trial) and future (likely expectation of death) hospital, medical and care
expenses;
past and future loss of earning capacity.
Non-Pecuniary:
past and future pain and suffering;
past and future loss of expectation of life;
past and future loss of amenity or enjoyment of life.
Fundamental Principles
Eg Medlin v. SGIO
the voluntary premature retirement of the Professor of Philosophy.
D must take P as that part is found with all weaknesses, beliefs, capacities and attributes.
Eg Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer
at the time of trial, cared for by family and fiancee;
gratuitous care;
diability giving rise to the NEED for the care;
paid to the plaintiff and now held in trust for the carer.
Eg Sharman v. Evans
aged 20 at time of MVA and became quadriplegic, with epilepsy, brain injury, pain etc and fully
aware of her loss.
no procedure for future review or for staggered payments at common law or in Queensland.
The sum awarded in most cases will be wrong (ie too little) - only certainty.
Duty to Mitigate
The pecuniary sum which will put P in as near as possible position s/he would have been if s/he
had not been the victim of Ds wrongdoing:
interest on sums up to date of judgement;
vicissitudes of life taken into account.
The is concern to prevent double dipping
set offs;
discount to take into account getting the amount in a lumpsum
Eg Sharman v. Evans:
para 20yo
loss of earning capacity damages reduced
=> to the extent that the money would have been spent on living
expenses because that already covered by damages for nursing home
expenses.
Another example:
P now has a reduced life expectancy and will die aged 45, would have
retired at 65 years:
=> will be compensated for the loss of earning capacity to the age of 65
years;
=> the amount P would have spent on living expenses between 45 and
65 years will be deducted because now P will not have that expense;
=> if likely to commit suicide there will be a further percentage
reduction.
Intereston damages awarded from date of cause of action arose to date of judgement;
amounts already received may be set off unless they are required to be repaid;
amount of damages may be discounted to take into account:
=> the fact that normally would not get the amount in a lump sum:
=> the vicissitudes of life.
Interest
Set Offs
Monies paid by employer as sick pay and workers compensation paymetns will be set off (ie
deducted) from the damages award.
Social security and medicare payments must be repaid to government and so will not be set off.
Charity intended to benefit the Plaintiff will not be set off.
Calculated by reference to what would have earned nett and after expenses deducted:
Wynn v. NSW Insurance
should future childcare and housekeeping expenses be deducted?
No because essentially private or domestic in character
If would not have worked then no award.
Very difficult to assess for younger people.
The total is discounted to take into account the fact that it is received as a lump sum and can be
invested immediately.
In Queensland the rate is set by s16 Supreme Court Act 1995 at 5%.
The investment option is also supposed to compensate for future inflation.
The amount may be further reduced to take into account the vicissitudes of lefe.
Malec v. Hutton
Wynn v. NSW Insurance
Medicare subsidies will have to be repaid to the government for past expenses.
There is some authority that inflation may be taken into account for future expenses but today
would probably be regarded as too speculative.
Care Expenses
In recent years the most contentious area has been the Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer component for
gratuitious care.
Van Gervan v. Fenton 1992 HC
Lynch v. Lynch 1991 NSWCA
Kars v. Kars 1997
Ps wife provided gratuitious care for her husband who injured by Ds negligence;
gave up full time job as a nurses aid
at first instance and on appeal damages were assessed based on her loss of wages minus travelling
expenses
P successful in appeal to HC
the market cost, as a gneral rule, is the amount to which the defendent must pay as
damages...in some cases the market cost may be too high...the case will be rare indeed
where income forgone by the carer will be the appropriate rate.
Lynch v. Lynch
Kars v. Kars
The same situation arose in Queensalnd with P being the wife and d being the driver in the MVA
and the gratuitious carer.
HC unanimously dismissed the appeal by D (insurance company).
A review of the relevance of insurance to the common law development of liability in tort may be
relevant and timely.
The problem for this principle operating outside the area of compulsory insurance is more
apparent that real.
Need to protect P against the vicissitudes of life ie husband unable to care for her.
Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer
Non-pecuniary loss
Death
Actions for or against the deceased survive for or against the estate.
Deceased P cannot receive:
non-pecuniary damages;
future probable earnings;
calculated without reference to loss or gain to the estate.
ss17 - 22 basically action can be brought for the losses suffered by the dependants (including de
facto spouses) of the deceased P
Nguyen v. Nguyen
loss of wifes and mothers gratuitous services
Jones v. Schiffman
age, appearance, inclination, experience, obligations to children and parents
and the value of freedom to remarry.
ECONOMIC LOSS:
NEGLIGENT AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
Policy Considerations
Categories of Cases
Negligent misrepresentation;
Economic loss resulting from damage to property of another;
Failure of a professional person to perform an undertaking or sevice properly;
Economic loss resulting from defective construction of buildings.
Negligent Misrepresentation
First category of cases involving pure economic loss in which the courts recognised the existence
of a duty of care.
Hedley Byrne v. Heller (1964)
No need to establish a contractual or fiduciary relationship;
Person giving the information must be possessed of special skill (or hold
themselves out as having such skill);
Assumption of responsibility by the speaker;
Reasonable reliance by plaintiff;
No disclaimer of responsibility.
Position in Australia
MLC v. Evatt (High Court)
Accepted that a duty of care could arise irrespective of contract or fiduciary
relationship;
Barwick CJ identified features of special relationship which would give rise to
duty of care.
On appeal to the Privy Council they found that the speaker must carry on
business of giving advice or let it be known the claims to possess special skill
in the field.
Features of Relationship (Endorsed by HC)
Speaker knows or ought to know:
Trusted by recipient to give information recipient believes speaker has capacity
to give;
The information is of a serious or business nature.
Speaker knew or ought to have known that recipient intended to rely on the information.
Reasonable for recipient to seek or accept and rely on speaker advice.
No requirement that speaker have special skill.
Subsequent High Court Decisions
Shaddock v. Parramatta City Council (1981)
No requirement that speaker be possessed of special skill (not neccessary to
decide in this case)
San Sebastian (1986)
Determined that reliance was the most significant element in establishing
proximity.
No requirement that statements made in response to request for information or
advice.
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v. Peat Marwick Hungerfords
1997 High Court decision.
Confirms the approach adopted in MLC v. Evatt and San Sebastian.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Five Elements
A representation of fact.
Defendant knew representation was false or recklessly indifferent.
Defendant intended plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentation.
Plaintiff did rely on the representation.
Plaintiff suffered damage.
CBC v. Brown
Misrepresentation of fact:
Defendant gave written advice that customer financially stable.
Defendant knew representation was false:
Question of fact.
Defendant intended plaintiff to rely on representation:
Not relevant that statement was made to an intermediary acting on behalf of a
class of persons.
Effect of disclaimer:
Cannot exclude liability for deceit.
Did plaintiff rely on representation?
Yes! They would have breached the contract.
Did the plaintiff suffer damage in fact and law?
Loss was direct and foreseeable consequence of the fraudulent
misrepresentation.
Krakowski v. Eurolynx
Krakowskis plaintiffs/appellants.
Eurolynx defendant/first respondent.
Mallesons(Eurolynxs solicitor) second respondent.
The representation:
An allegation that the disclosed insturment of lease was not the exhaustive
contractual arrangement between E and the lessee.
Falsity of the representation.
Inducement.
Fraud by Eurolynx.
Disappointed beneficiary.
The position in England:
Ross v. Caunters [1980] Ch 297 (no longer useful in Australia)
See esp. per Lord Wilbourforce
White v. Jones [1995] 2 AC 207 (used in Hill v. Van Erp)
Before Will prepared, testator died.
Majority determined DOC to beneficiaries under Will:
Desire to do practical justice.
Rejected policy arguements [L. Gough] on grounds that Will unique
form of transaction.
The position in Australia:
Watts v. Public Trustee for Western Australia [1984] WAR 97
Ross v. Caunters applied, no longer good law.
Seale v. Perry [1982] VR 193
No DOC owed.
Hawkins v. Claytons Utz (1988) 164 CLR 539 (text page 218-20)
Proximity used by majority to determine DOC.
Hill v. Van Erp (1997) 142 ALR 687
Hill v. Van Erp
Brennan CJ:
Accepted that practical justice tends in favour of a remedy.
Did not accept that duty arose through extension of principles in Hedley Byrne
v. Heller
Necessary to define the elements additional to mere foreseeability which would
allow recovery.
claim onyl by intended but disappointed beneficiary.
Duty owed is in the performance of work in respect of which he owes a
corresponding contractual duty to the testator.
Dawson J:
Adopted the incremental approach.
Something more than reasonable foreseeability is required to establish a DOC.
What is sufficient or necessary in one case is a guide to what is
sufficient or necessary in another.
Proximity is result of a process of reasoning; not the process itself.
Relationship of proximity established by assumption of responsibility and
reliance.
Toohey J:
Agreed in general with the reasoning of Dawson J.
Gaudron J:
There were no policy factors which operated to deny the existence of a duty of
care.
Policy favoured the finding of a DOC.
The contractual relationship between the testator and the solicitor was relevant:
A duty assigned to a thrid party would only arise where the alleged
duty was consistent with the duty owed to the client.
The element of control was relevant.
The nature of the loss wsuffered was the loss of:
A precise legal right which, in turn, has resulted in economic loss.
Gummow J:
There were no policy reasons to disallow recovery.
Recognition of a duty did not interfere with any existing legal right:
The facts of the case fell within a gap in the law.
Duty arose as a result of a complex of factors (at page 530).
Defective Buildings
Cases in which the plaintiffs property is and always has been defective.
Traditionally no duty of care in tort.
English Cases:
Anns Case 1978
Junior Books v. Veitchi (1983)
D & F Estates v. Church Commissioners for England (1989)
Murphy v. Brentwood (1990) - overruled above case.
In Australia:
Particular category of case involving liability in tort for defective structures.
Bryan v. Maloney
Diminution in value of the house categorised as pure economic loss.
Disappearing Torts
Mengels Case
Traces its origins back to the 16th century when the action was available for the loss of a servants
services.
But those actions based on a proprietary right rather thatn a contractual right.
The modern action has been developing sence the case of Lumley v. Gye (1853).
Originally called the tort of inducing breach of contract.
Elements of the tort:
A valid existing contract;
actual/constructive knowledge of the contract;
intentional interference;
breach of, or interference with, a term of the contract;
damage.
Intentional Interference:
intention but not malice is required
requires knowledge of the contract
now it is sufficient that there is an interference with the performance of
a term of the contract.
If the contract is determinable at will by either party, then inducing one
party to bring the contract to an end will not be sufficient
Conspiracy
Patricks v MUA
Patricks arranged its affairs so that a subsidiary employed the MUA members.
That subsidiary had no asses except the contracts to supply labour to Patricks
and could terminate the contracts if the workers went on strike.
6 April MUA commenced legal proceedings.
7 April patricks terminated the contracts and the subsidiary went into
liquidation.
The MUA argued
Patricks was in breach of s298K of the Workplace Relations Act because of the
corporate restructuring was detrimental to the workers employment and was
motivated by the workers trade union membership.
Patricks, Reith, Corrigan, etc conspired by unlawful means (breach of s298K) to
injure the employees:
by altering their position to their detriment.
by dismessing the employees.
The Conspiracy Action
An agreement between two or more.
Patricks, Reith, Corrigan etc.
Intentional injury by an unlawful act.
Breach of s298K.
Implementation of the conspiracy.
The restructuring.
P will suffer damage.
An injuction is sought.
Would the defence of justification have been successful???
The ACCC Action
The ACCC has a statutory right to bring the action.
An indirect interference with a contract.
Patricks and its customers have contracts.
The MUA pickets the wharves so that the customers goods remain on
the docks.
Patricks cannot fulfill its contract with its customers.
Its customers suffer damage in lost production, profits etc.
Patricks v ITF
The basis of Patricks action was an ITF circular to its memebers to do whatever
possible to influence companies...not to make use of non-union port facilities
operated by Patrick Stevedores.
Failed to get an injunction because insufficeint evidence re the actual
advocating of unlawful action - striking etc is legal in some countries.
DEFAMATION
What is Defamation?
Three elements:
1. Defamatory matter.
2. Reference to the plaintiff.
3. Publication.
Number of defences available.
Defamatory Matter
Common Law
matter of a kind likely to lead ordinary decent folk to think less of the person about
whom it was made => Boyd v. Mirror Newspapers
Queensland
s 4: Likelihood of:
injury to reputation; OR
injury to plaintiffs profession or trade; OR
other persons induced to shun, or avoid, or ridicule or despise the plaintiff.
Standard - Objective test CL and Qld
Judged by the standard of a hypothetical referee: Readers Digest v. Lamb.
Variously described as:
reasonable man;
right thinking memebers of society;
ordinary man not avid for scandal.
Knowledge of additional facts and circumstances
Not sufficient to show discredit before a restricted class:
Byrne v. Deane
c/f Krahe v. TCN Channel Nine
Intention of the defendant irrelevant: Queensland Newspapers v. Baker
Protection of Personal and Business Reputation
Common Law:
Attack on business must be attack on plaintiffs reputation:
Fairfax v. Punch
Boyd v. Mirror Newspapers
Queensland:
s 4 Defamation Act includes:
likely injury to the plaintiffs profession or trade
Boyd v. Mirror Newspapers
Gibbs v. Dunn
Extends to virtually any legitimate calling:
Queensland Newspapers v. Baker
Interpreting Defamatory Matter
Common Law:
Natural and ordinary meaning.
Innuendo:
False innuendo: providing you can add two and two together
True innuendo: a statement that nobody could possibly read anything
into eg Cassidy v. Daily Mirror [1929]
Queensland:
Section 4 of the Defamation Act:
Imputation may be expressed either directly or by insinuation or irony:
Composite Buyers v. Clarke
Role of Judge and Jury
Common Law:
Judge:
Is the statement capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged?
Jury:
Did the statement actually have the defamatory meaning.
Queensland:
Section 18 Defamation Act follows the common law.
Publication
Common Law:
The defamatory matter must be made known to at least one other person other than the
plaintiff.
What constitutes publication?
Queensland:
Section 5(1)
A person who publishes defamatory matter concerning any person is said to
defame that person.
Section 5(2)
Publication is,in the case of spoken words or audible sounds, the speaking of
such words or making of such sounds in the presence and hearing of any other
person other than the person defamed, and in the case of signs, signals, of
gestures, the making of such signs, signals, or gestures, so as to be seen or felt
by, or otherwise come to the knowledge of, any person other than the person
defamed, and in the case of other defamatory matter, the exhibiting of it in
public, or causing it to be read or seen, or showing or delivering it, or causing it
to be shown or delivered with a view to its being read or seen by any other
person than the person defamed.
Injurious Falsehood
Common Law:
protects econmic interests;
actionable only if can pove pecuniary loss
Ratcliffe v. Evans
Requirements of the Tort:
False statement of and concerning goods;
Publication by defendant to third party;
Malice on part of the defendant;
Calculated to cause damage (objective test);
Proof of particular loss as a result of the statement.
Queensland:
Included in Section 4 of the Defamation Act:
Defamatory matter includes any imputation concerning any person...by which
the person is likely to be injured in the persons profession or trade.
Triviality
Queensland:
Section 20 of the Defamation Act:
In any case other than words intended to be read, it is a good defence
to an action for defamation...to prove that the publication was made on
an occasion and under circumstances when the person defamed was
not likely to be injured thereby.
Consent
Common Law:
Complete defence
must consent to particular form of publication.
Queensland:
s16(1)(f) Qualified protection
If the publication is made in good faith on the invitation or challenge
of the person defamed.
Innocent Dissemination
Common Law:
Defence for innocent publishers of libel written by others if:
Publisher must not have knowledge of the defamatory material; and
Publisher not careless in failing to recognise it.
Queensland:
ss 22,25, 26, and 27 of Defamation Act:
Protection extends only to sellers of books, newspapers, magazines and
periodicals.
Protection extends to employers.
Justification
Common Law:
Truth is a complete defence, if it is true in substance and effect.
Queensland:
Section 15 of the Defamation Act:
Matter must be true AND publication must be for the public benefit.
Section 19 of the Defamation Act:
Public benefit is a question of fact for the jury.
Fair Comment
Bjelke-Peterson v. Byrnes per McPherson J 131-33.
Common Law:
The statement must:
Relate to a matter of public interest; AND
Be comment (not fact); AND
Be fair (honest, not malicious or illwill).
Queensland:
Section 14 of the Defamation Act:
The comment must fall under one of the categories in section 14.
Absolute Privilege
Common Law:
Statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings;
Statements made in the course of judicial (and quasi-judicial) proceedings;
Communications between solicitor and client in relation to judical proceedings;
Communications between Ministers of State in the course of official duties;
Communication between spouses.
Mann v. ONeill
Queensland:
ss 10, 11 and 12 of the Defamation Act:
Protection is limited to:
A member of the Legislative Assembly for the publication in
Parliament.
A person presenting a petition to the Legislative Assembly;
Publication in the course of proceedings in court, or in the
course of an inquiry;
Statements made in an official report of an authorised inquiry.
Qualified Privilege
Common Law:
Where publisher has an interest or duty(legal, moral or social) to publish AND
Recipient has corresponding interest or duty to receive it
Recipriocity is essential;
see pages 449-50 of Gardiner & McGlone
Protection may be lost if:
Publisher motivated by malice or
extent of publication exceeds what is reasonably necessary.
Queensland:
Sections 13 and 17 Defamation Act:
Section 13:
Includes publication of reports of proceedings of:
Parliament;
courts;
commissions;
government departments;
police;
council meetings.
Publication is lawful if made in good faith for the information of the
public.
Section 13(2):
publication is in good faith for the information of the public if:
Publisher not actuated by ill will or any other improper
motive;
The manner of the paublication is such as is ordinarily and
fairly used in the case of the publication of news.
Section 17:
Burden of proving absence of good faith lies on party alleging the
absence.
Section 16:
s16(1) specifies occasion to which privilege attaches
publication must be made in good faith;
s16(2) defines good faith for the purposes of this section:
publication is relecant tothe matters listed in s16(1) AND
Publication does not exceed what is reasonably necessary for
the occasion AND
Publisher not actuated by ill will or improper motive AND
Publisher did not believe the defamatory matter tobe untrue.
Constitutional Protection
Longe v. ABC
Constitution implies right of freedom of political expression.
Section 128:
Common law privileges or statutory privileges inconsistent with
constitutional right are invalid.
Necessary to extend the circumstances in which the defence of
qualified privilege will apply under common law where:
The communication is about government or political matters
AND
The publishers conduct was reasonable AND
publication was not actuated by malice.
Remedies
Injunctions:
Discretionary remedy;
Mandatory Injuction:
Requires a person to do something.
Prohibitory Injuction:
Restrains a person from committing or repeating an act.
Interlocutory Injunction:
Continues until hearing or further order.
Perpetual Injunction.
Reluctance to Grant Injunction
Right to be heard by jury.
Freedom of speech.
Power exercised reluctantly and only in very clear cases:
Shiel v. Trandmedia Production Pty Ltd
Damages:
Primary remedy.
Purpose to compensate the plaintiff for injury suffered to reputation.
Determination by jury
Types:
Actual pecuniary loss;
Damages to feelings as well as reputation;
Aggravated damages;
Exemplary or punitive damages;
interest may be awarded.
Mitigation:
Relevant factors include:
apology/retraction;
recovery in other actions in re the same matter;
poor reputation;
truth;
absence of malice.