Douglas v Penguin Books Australia [2002] NSWSC 363

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Douglas v Penguin Books Australia [2002] NSWSC 363 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20828 of 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 1 May 2002

MALCOLM DOUGLAS (Plaintiff)

v PARTIES : PENGUIN BOOKS AUSTRALIA (First Defendant)

JANECK GAZECKI (Second Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

T Hale SC (Paintiff)

COUNSEL : T Blackburn (First Defendant)

D Higgs SC (Second Defendant) Michael Frankel & Co (Plaintiff)

SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (First Defendant)

Jackson Smith (Second Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - capacity - difference in substance CASES CITED : Jackson v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36 Singleton v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd, unreported, 20 February 1980 DECISION : See paragraph 17

DJL:1 [2002] NSWSC 363 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION list

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 1 MAY 2002

20828 OF 2001

MALCOLM DOUGLAS (Plaintiff)

v

PENGUIN BOOKS AUSTRALIA (First Defendant)

JANEK GAZECKI (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations – capacity – difference in substance) 1 The first defendant is the publisher and the second defendant is the author and thus a publisher of a book entitled "Crocs and barramundi - on the road with Malcolm Douglas". 2 The plaintiff is the person named in the subtitle to the published work. 3 The book, as I understand it, is a record of what is described on the rear cover blurb as "A journey into Australia's greatest wilderness, with Australia's greatest adventure guru". 4 By reference to the book as a whole and particularised passages in it, the plaintiff complains that the published work carries the following defamatory imputations of him: "3(a) That in a filming expedition led by the plaintiff, he was irrational and unbalanced in his dealings with his colleagues. (b) That the plaintiff's behaviour toward others was so unreasonable that most people who had dealings with him on his film expeditions were unable to cope with his conduct. (d) That the plaintiff took advantage of employees by securing their continued employment against the employees' will by means of a guarantee for loans. (e) Despite repeated demands from the council to pay unpaid land taxes he was legally required to pay, the plaintiff failed to do so".