Rader v Haines

[2022] NSWCA 198

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Serious harm to reputation
3. › Threshold requirement under Defamation Act 2013 (UK), s 1
4. › Limited publication to family members
5. › Duration of reputational harm
6. › Whether transitory harm to reputation with parents who disbelieved allegations within weeks constituted 'serious harm'
7. › Relevance of delay in complaint and commencement of proceedings
8. › Defamation Act 2013 (UK), s 1
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Qualified privilege at common law
4. › Defining the privileged occasion
5. › Communication between grandparents regarding family matters
6. › Whether occasion extended beyond children's education to relationship between parties' children
7. › Relevance of conveyed imputations to occasion
1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Qualified privilege at common law
4. › Malice
5. › Whether publication actuated by improper purpose
6. › Whether desire to influence Family Court proceedings or turn parents against appellant established
1. Defamation
2. › Imputations
3. › Whether specific instance of conduct supports general imputation
4. › Whether single act of taking car without consent conveys imputation of being 'a thief'

Quick Take

This case synthesizes the 'serious harm' principles from Lachaux, establishing that transitory reputational harm with a small audience of persons who do not believe the imputations is unlikely to satisfy the threshold, and that delay in complaint is a relevant (though not conclusive) factor in defamation claims.