Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Lassanah v State of New South Wales (No. 3) [2010] NSWDC 241

HEARING DATE(S): 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 February 2010; 6 May 2010; 28 May 2010; 3 June 2010; 13 August 2010; 9 September 2010; 16 September 2010 (written submissions), 17 September 2010 (written submissions)

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 September 2010

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Gibson DCJ

(1) Judgment for the first plaintiff for defamation in the sum of $15,000. (2) Judgment for the second plaintiff for defamation in the sum of $20,000. (3) Judgment for the first plaintiff for false imprisonment in the sum of $15,000. (4) Judgment for the second plaintiff for false imprisonment in the sum of $20,000. (5) The judgment sum referred to in orders (2) and (4) above is to be paid into court for investment pending orders of the Supreme Court or Guardianship Tribunal. DECISION: (6) The parties have liberty to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the mathematically agreed calculation of interest on the judgment sums. (7) Judgment for the first defendant/cross-claimant on the cross-claim of 100% indemnity and contribution against the second defendant/cross-defendant, including an indemnity for the costs of these proceedings. (8) Defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of these proceedings. (9) Second defendant/Cross-defendant pay the first defendant/cross-claimant's costs of the cross-claim. (10) Liberty to apply in relation to costs and interest. (11) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

CATCHWORDS: TORT - defamation, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment - Department of Community Services carer takes intellectually disabled patient to visit a watch store - store employee presses the hold-up button after they leave the premises and police officers stop and search the plaintiffs - whether publication of the matter complained of established - whether the publication was made on an occasion protected by qualified privilege at common law or pursuant to s 30 Defamation Act - whether the privilege was defeated by evidence of malice - whether the defence of unlikelihood of harm was established - wrongful arrest and false imprisonment - whether the police continuing to confine the plaintiffs in circumstances where they had established no robbery or attempted robbery had occurred amounted to false imprisonment - whether the second defendant (the watch store) was liable for false imprisonment - cross-claim between defendants - claims of general, - aggravated and exemplary damages