Moit v Bristow

[2005] NSWCA 322

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Justification
4. › Substantial truth
5. › Whether imputation of dishonesty substantially true where publisher held honest belief
6. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 15
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Comment
4. › Distinction between fact and comment
5. › Whether imputation of dishonesty was statement of fact or comment
6. › Whether factual basis sufficiently identified in matter complained of
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), ss 30, 32
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Qualified privilege
4. › Common law qualified privilege
5. › Duty and interest
6. › Whether reciprocal duty or interest established
7. › Whether curiosity sufficient to found occasion of qualified privilege
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Unlikelihood of harm
4. › Whether circumstances of publication such that plaintiff unlikely to suffer harm
5. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 13

Quick Take

An honest belief in the truth of published statements does not constitute dishonesty for the purposes of a justification defence to an imputation of dishonesty. An imputation of dishonesty that does not sufficiently identify its factual basis in the matter complained of is a statement of fact, not comment. Curiosity about legalities and a desire to discredit are insufficient to found an occasion of qualified privilege. The s 46A(2) exercise does not require recitation of a string of personal injury awards but the court must ensure an appropriate and rational relationship between harm and damages.