Maitland and Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 376

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Maitland and Anor v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 376 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20665 of 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 May 2002

JOHN MAITLAND (First Plaintiff)

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING AND ENERGY UNION PARTIES : (Second Plaintiff)

v

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

R Weaver (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : T Blackburn (Defendant) RL Whyburn (Plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : Blake Dawson Waldron (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance CASES CITED : Maitland and Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369 DECISION : See paragraph 13

DJL:1 [2002] NSWSC 376

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

defamation list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 3 MAY 2002

20665 OF 2001 JOHN MAITLAND (First Plaintiff)

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING AND ENERGY UNION (Second Plaintiff)

v

NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations – capacity – form –difference in substance) 1 The plaintiffs sue the defendant by an Amended Statement of Claim (filed on 28 February 2002) for an article published on 10 July 2001 in "The Daily Telegraph". It is an article with the headline "Militant mobs find safe haven" and is by The Telegraph's columnist Piers Akerman. The text of the article is appended to these reasons. 2 The first plaintiff alleges that the matter complained of carries the following imputations defamatory of him: "5(a) The First Plaintiff, as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, sought to pervert the course of justice by threatening an employer that it would encounter difficulties with a $6 million extension if it did not withdraw its co-operation with police investigations. (b) The First Plaintiff as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, obstructed a police investigation by threatening an employer that it would encounter difficulties with a $6 million extension if it did not withdraw its co-operation with police investigations. (c) The First Plaintiff, as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, engaged in standover tactics by threatening an employer that it would encounter difficulties with a $6 million extension if it did not withdraw its co-operation with police investigations. (d) The first plaintiff, as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, condoned violent, destructive rampages at the offices of employers. (e) The first plaintiff, as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, condoned attempts to pervert the course of justice to achieve union ends. (f) The first plaintiff, as national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, condoned the use of standover tactics to achieve union ends". 3 The second plaintiff contends that the matter complained of contains the following imputations defamatory of it: "6(a) The Second Plaintiff sought to pervert the course of justice by threatening an employer that it would encounter difficulties with a $6 million extension if it did not withdraw its co-operation with police investigations. (b) The Second Plaintiff engaged in standover tactics by threatening an employer that it would encounter difficulties with a $6 million extension if it did not withdraw its co-operation with police investigations. (c) The Second Plaintiff condoned violent, destructive rampages by union members at the offices of employers. (d) The Second Plaintiff condoned the use of standover tactics to achieve union ends". 4 This matter gives rise to similar issues that were dealt with in my judgment of Maitland & Or v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369.