Tag Archives: Appeal court

Failure to stretch Lange defence for foreign language papers: The Korean Times Pty Ltd & Anor v Un Dok Pak [2011] NSWCA 365

The plaintiff was born in Korea and moved to Australia when she was 15. She studied Economics and Law, became a solicitor and also married another solicitor (Ki Beom Kwon). She and her husband were heavily involved in the Korean … Continue reading

Posted in government and political matter, Reciprocal duty-interest, Trial | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Appeal, appeal and appeal again: Sands v State of South Australia [2011] SASCFC 136

The plaintiff alleged that members of the SA Police Force, in the course of investigating a suspicious death, made statements that were defamatory of him, including statements that the plaintiff was suspected to have murdered the deceased. The deceased was … Continue reading

Posted in defences, Qualified privilege, Reciprocal duty-interest, Strike out application | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Cartoon Imputations Stand: Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd v Palmer [2011] QCA 286

In a BRW 2002 edition, Ross Palmer was listed as being worth $180 million. On 10 June 2009, the Brisbane Courier-Mail published an article in its gossip column, “City Beat”. The article said this: “Downsized On a quiet day yesterday … Continue reading

Posted in Defamatory meaning, imputations, Strike out application | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Captain Dragan appeal fails: Snedden v Nationwide New Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 262

The plaintiff, Daniel Snedden, also known as Dragan Vasilykovic sued The Australian for an article published in September 2005: “Serbian Death squad commander alive and well teaching golf in Perth.” There was a trial by jury held to determine whether … Continue reading

Posted in contextual truth, News, Truth | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Contextual Truth and Nothing But the Truth: Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174

The contextual truth defence is the most complicated, convoluted and confusing defences available in defamation at common law. Under the 2005 Act, it means that the defendant claims this: “The words don’t mean that… they mean this other thing, which … Continue reading

Posted in contextual truth, News | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Qualified privilege and Rumours in the High Court: Cush v Dillon [2011] HCA 30

On 10 August 2011, the High Court considered the question of whether qualified privilege attached to a statement (made in April 2005) to the Chairperson of a Committee known as the CMA, that: “it is common knowledge among people [on … Continue reading

Posted in News, Qualified privilege, Reciprocal duty-interest | Tagged | 1 Comment