Harding & Anor v Essey & Anor

[2005] WASCA 30

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Libel
3. › Identification of plaintiff
4. › Corporate plaintiff
5. › Whether plaintiff identified where named on separate page of publication but not in words complained of as pleaded
6. › Whether pleadings permitted reliance on material outside words complained of
1. Defamation
2. › Libel
3. › Identification of plaintiff
4. › True innuendo
5. › Extrinsic facts
6. › Whether plaintiff proved extrinsic facts known to persons to whom words published
7. › Distinction between publication and republication
1. Defamation
2. › Publication
3. › Distinction between publication and republication
4. › Whether reading of newsletter by third party at school canteen constituted original publication or republication by canteen manager
5. › Whether finding of authorised republication open where republication excluded from pleadings
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Qualified privilege
4. › Reply to attack
5. › Whether defamatory response published to wider audience than original attack attracted qualified privilege
6. › Whether publisher acted reasonably in not inquiring as to extent of original publication
7. › Objective test for proportionality of response

Quick Take

A person responding to a defamatory attack must take reasonable steps to ascertain the extent of the original publication before publishing a response; failure to make any inquiry as to the recipients of the original attack, even where the attacker has been uncooperative, will defeat a defence of qualified privilege where the response is published to a substantially wider audience. The test for whether publication to persons without the requisite interest destroys the privilege is objective. An agent who signs a defamatory letter on behalf of a company is protected by the company's qualified privilege even if the agent was not personally defamed in the original attack.