Cush v Dillon

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJMatter No S309/2010AMANDA CUSH  APPELLANTANDMERYL LURLINE DILLON  RESPONDENTMatter No S310/2010LESLIE FRANCIS BOLAND  APPELLANTANDMERYL LURLINE DILLON  RESPONDENTCush v DillonBoland v Dillon[2011] HCA 3010 August 2011S309/2010 & S310/2010ORDERIn each matter, appeal dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationT A Alexis SC with P M Sibtain for the appellant in both matters (instructed by Cole & Butler Solicitors)G O'L Reynolds SC with G R Rubagotti for the respondent in both matters (instructed by Banki Haddock Fiora)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSCush v DillonBoland v DillonDefamation – Defence of qualified privilege – Where occasion of qualified privilege existed to communicate existence of rumour – Where defendant published rumour as "common knowledge" – Whether matter published on occasion attracting defence of qualified privilege – Whether distinction between publication of rumour and publication of fact of rumour.Defamation – Defence of qualified privilege – Rebuttal by express malice – Where defendant did not believe truth of publication – Whether lack of belief in truth of publication sufficient to establish malice. Words and phrases – "express malice", "qualified privilege".Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A.FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ.   In two separate actions brought in the District Court of New South Wales under the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) and heard together, a jury found that Mrs Meryl Dillon, the respondent in each of these appeals,...