Palmer v McGowan (No 5)

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 02 August 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCA 893
• Date: 02 August 2022
• Court: Federal Court

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Palmer v McGowan (No 5) [2022] FCA 893

File number:	NSD 912 of 2020
Judgment of:	LEE J
Date of judgment:	2 August 2022
Catchwords:	DEFAMATION – proceeding brought by prominent political figure and businessman against Premier of Western Australia in respect of six matters – cross-claim brought by Premier against applicant in respect of nine matters – series of extended skirmishes between applicant, Premier and Attorney-General of Western Australia in print and online media, and on television, radio and social media – colourful language deployed by applicant, Premier and Attorney-General – allegations of lying and corruption – declarations of “war” – primary proceeding and cross-claim dominated by context of COVID-19 pandemic and enactment of Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Act 2020 (WA) (Amendment Act) – consideration of scope of matters – whether imputations conveyed ; DEFAMATION – where Premier advanced three defences – defence of common law qualified privilege – where publications reached a wide audience – publications incapable of attracting requisite reciprocity of duty and interest – defence of qualified privilege pursuant to s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Act) – consideration of s 30 criteria – reasonableness pursuant to s 30(3) – publications not reasonable in circumstances – defence of constitutionally protected privilege recognised in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 – consideration of criticisms of Lange – consideration of reasonableness threshold – threshold equivalent to s 30 of the Act ; DEFAMATION – where applicant advanced three defences against cross-claim – defence of substantial truth under s 25 of the Act – insufficient evidence of substantial truth – defence of contextual truth pursuant to s 26 of the Act – where all contextual imputations failed – “reply to attack” species of common law qualified privilege defence – cross-claim matters do not constitute proportionate “replies” or “ripostes” ; DEFAMATION – consideration of principles of malice with respect to primary proceeding and cross-claim – malice not established in either proceeding ; DAMAGES – where damages for non-economic loss sought in both primary proceeding and cross-claim – where limited damage to applicant’s reputation – hurt to feelings not established – where Premier did not suffer damage to reputation – where Premier’s reputation likely improved by reason of the impugned publications – where Premier suffered some hurt to feelings – where both parties made extensive case for aggravated damages – consideration of principles of aggravated damages in defamation proceedings – no separate head of damages – where conduct is not unjustified, improper or lacking in bona fides – aggravated damages unavailable ; DAMAGES – compensatory and aggravated damages – assessment of quantum – case for vindication overstated – consideration of award of nominal damage – modest damages awarded
Legislation:	Constitution s 92 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt VB, s 37P(2), 51A Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.02 Constitution Act 1889 (WA) ss 2(1), 2(3) Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) (repealed) ss 22, 22(2A) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 4, 25, 26, 26(2), 29A, 30, 30(1)(a), 30(3), 34, 35(3) Defamation Amendment Act 2020 (NSW) Emergency Management Act 2005 (WA) Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002 (WA) Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Act 2020 (WA) ss 7, 10(1), 10(2), 10(4), 10(5), 10(6), 10(7), 18(5), 18(6), 21(1) Defamation Act 2013 (UK)
Cases cited:	Abou-Lokmeh v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 228 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 Ajinomoto Sweeteners v Asda Stores [2011] QB 497 (CA) Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2010] HCA 25; (2010) 241 CLR 79 Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15; (2014) 219 FCR 322 Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1986] AC 299 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing [2019] FCAFC 125; (2019) 271 FCR 632 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 510 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Obeid [2006] NSWCA 231; (2006) 66 NSWLR 605 Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren (1966) 117 CLR 185 Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1244; (2007) 167 IR 43 Barilaro v Google LLC [2022] FCA 650 Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 5; (2004) 218 CLR 366 Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84 Beattie Passive Norse v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1116 (TCC) Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 135 ER 1039 Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] WLR 579 Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 351 Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 Chau v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 185 Cornwell v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 255 Cush v Dillon [2011] HCA 30; (2011) 243 CLR 298 Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 295 Dutton v Bazzi [2021] FCA 1474; (2021) Aust Torts Reports ¶82-713 Echo Publications Pty Ltd v Tucker [2007] NSWCA 73 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Chau [2020] FCAFC 48 Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174; (2011) 81 NSWLR 157 Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434; (2001) 53 NSWLR 541 Fraser v Holmes [2009] NSWCA 36; (2009) 253 ALR 538 French v Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] VSC 155; (2010) 27 VR 171 Gould v Jordan (No 2) [2021] FCA 1289 Gross v Weston [2007] NSWCA 1; (2007) 69 NSWLR 279 Habib v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 291 Hanson‑Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981 Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 5) [2020] FCA 34 Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Trad [2012] HCA 44; (2012) 247 CLR 31 Hayson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 81 Herron v HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 68; (2022) 400 ALR 56 Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2015] FCA 652; (2015) 237 FCR 33 Hopewell v Kennedy (1905) 9 OLR 43 Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135 Howe & McColough v Lees (1910) 11 CLR 361 Howell v Haines (1997) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-409 Jensen v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [No 13] [2019] WASC 451 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O’Shane [2005] NSWCA 164; (2005) Aust Torts Reports ¶81–789 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Zunter [2006] NSWCA 227 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kennett v Farmer [1988] VR 991 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation...