Cush v Dillon and Boland v Dillon [2009] NSWDC 21

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Cush v Dillon and Boland v Dillon [2009] NSWDC 21

HEARING DATE(S): 9/2/09, 10/2/09, 11/2/09, 12/2/09, 13/2/09

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 February 2009

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Elkaim SC DCJ

DECISION: See paragraph 88

CATCHWORDS: Defamation

LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974

Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited [2009] NSWCA 9 Roberts v Bass (2002) 194 ALR 161 CASES CITED: Jones v Sutton [2004] NSWCA 439 Moumoutzakis v Carpino [2008] NSWDC 168 Hennessy v Lynch (No 3) [2007] NSWDC 268

Amanda Cush (Plaintiff) PARTIES: Leslie Francis Boland (Plaintiff) Meryl Lurline Dillon (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 4735/06; 4917/06

COUNSEL: T Alexis SC and P Sibtain (Plaintiffs) M Lynch (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Cole & Butler (Plaintiffs) Banki Haddock Fiora (Defendant)

JUDGMENT Reasons for Judgment

1. Mr Leslie Boland and Ms Amanda Cush are plaintiffs in separate actions in which they have each sued Ms Meryl Dillon. Their actions were brought pursuant to the Defamation Act 1974 ("the Act"). The two cases have been heard together.

2. Under the above Act the litigation has occurred in a two stage process. First is what is commonly known as a Section 7A Hearing which took place before a Judge and Jury in November 2007. Following the success, from the plaintiff's point of view, of that hearing the matters moved on to the hearing before me. My task has been to consider the defences raised by Mrs Dillon and, if appropriate, to assess the damages payable to each plaintiff.

3. The Section 7A Hearing considered two statements alleged to have been made by the defendant. The jury was only satisfied that one of the statements had been made. In respect of that statement the jury found that the statement had been published to at least one person and that certain imputations flowed from the statement. As between the plaintiffs these imputations were substantially the same but, of course, varied with the particular circumstance of each plaintiff. I have annexed to this judgment a copy of the transcript relating to the alleged statements, the Jury's findings, and the imputations which were established.