Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judge: WHITE J
• Judgment Date: 25 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] FCA 1981
• Date: 25 November 2019
• Court: Federal Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hanson‑Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981

File number:	NSD 1370 of 2018
Judge:	WHITE J
Date of judgment:	25 November 2019
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION – multiple publications – whether the imputations concerning the Applicant which the Respondent admitted had been conveyed were defamatory of her – whether an imputation which is otherwise defamatory may not be defamatory when published by one politician concerning another politician – whether defamatory imputations were rendered “anodyne” or “drowned out” by the surrounding context – extent to which the publications diminished the Applicant’s reputation – whether the defence of justification established – whether the defence of statutory qualified privilege established – whether evidence and submissions in the proceedings infringed s 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) and, if so, whether the proceedings should be permanently stayed. ; DEFAMATION – defences – justification under s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) – whether the Applicant had in fact made the statement attributed to her by the Respondent on which he had based the defamatory imputations – reliability of eyewitness accounts – qualified privilege – whether the Respondent’s conduct was reasonable – whether the Respondent was actuated by malice. ; DEFAMATION – remedies – assessment of damages – whether the Applicant is entitled to aggravated damages – whether hurt and distress suffered by the Applicant derived from an imputation that was not pleaded.
Legislation:	Australia Constitution s 49 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 136 Parliamentary Privileges Act (1987) (Cth) s 16 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.03, 16.08, 16.41 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) ss 15, 22 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 4, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 Bill of Rights 1688 Art 9
Cases cited:	Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [1998] NSWSC 4; (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth(1988) 19 FCR 223 Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 19 FCR 223 Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 225 Armstrong v McIntosh (No 2) [2019] WASC 379 Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371 Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 383 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren [1966] HCA 37; (1966) 117 CLR 185 Barbaro v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 30 Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 Bolton v Stoltenberg [2018] NSWSC 1518 Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 Buchanan v Jennings [2004] UKPC 36; [2005] 1 AC 115 Calwell v Ipec Australia Ltd [1975] HCA 47;(1975) 135 CLR 321 Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash [2016] FCA 1466 Carrigan v Honourable Senator Michaelia Cash [2017] FCAFC 86 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd[1993] HCA 31;(1993) 178 CLR 44 Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335; (2010) 278 ALR 232 Chau v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 185 Comalco Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1983) 78 FLR 449 Conlon v Advertiser‑News Weekend Publishing Co Pty Ltd [2008] SADC 91 Costello v Random House Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 137 ACTR 1 Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd [1991] HCA 10; (1991) 172 CLR 211 Crane v Gething[2000] FCA 45; (2000) 97 FCR 9 Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine [2012] NSWCA 195 Egan v Willis [1998] HCA 71; (1998) 195 CLR 424 Flegg v Hallett [2015] QSC 167 Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 362 Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1973) 22 FLR 181 Haertsch v Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 182 Halden v Marks (1995) 17 WAR 447 Hamsher v Swift(1992) 33 FCR 545 Hanson‑Young v Leyonhjelm [2018] FCA 1688; (2018) 364 ALR 624 Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Tingle[2001] NSWCA 194 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33 Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135 Howden v Truth & Sportsman Ltd [1937] HCA 74; (1937) 58 CLR 416 Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 AC 359 Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75; [2005] QB 946 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 201 ALR 77 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Zunter [2006] NSWCA 227 Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 Laurance v Katter [2000] 1 Qd R 147 Leyonhjelm v Hanson‑Young [2019] FCA 156 Mirabella v Price [2018] VCC 650 Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369 O’Hagan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 302; (2001) 53 NSWLR 89 Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 R v Richards; Ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157 R v Theophanous [2003] VSCA 78; (2003) 141 A Crim R 216 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton[2009] HCA 16; (2009) 238 CLR 460 Rann v Olsen [2000] SASC 83; (2000) 76 SASR 450 Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb[1982] HCA 4; (1982) 150 CLR 500 Roberts v Bass [2002] HCA 57; (2002) 212 CLR 1 Rogers v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 52; (2003) 216 CLR 327 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 550 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496 Sands v The State of South Australia (No 2) [2010] SASC 340; (2010) 273 LSJS 424 Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317 Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd[1908] HCA 22;(1908) 6 CLR 1 Spautz v Williams [1983] 2 NSWLR 506 Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB); [2011] 1 WLR 198 Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; (2018) 263 CLR 149 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Wagner v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 201
Date of hearing:	29 and 30 April and 1‑3 May 2019
Date of last submissions:	3 May 2019
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	408
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr K Smark SC with Ms Chrysanthou
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Kennedys
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr AJH Morris QC with Mr K Stoyle
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sterling Law

O...