Maitland & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Maitland & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 369 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20666 of 2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 20 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 May 2002

JOHN MAITLAND (First Plaintiff)

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

JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

R Weaver (Plaintiffs) COUNSEL : T Blackburn (Defendants) RL Whyburn and Associates (Paintiffs) SOLICITORS : Freehills (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Imputations - form - capacity - general - specific DECISION : See paragraph 15

DJL:1 [2002] NSWSC 369

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 3 MAY 2002

20666 of 2001 JOHN MAITLAND (First Plaintiff)

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING AND ENERGY UNION (Second Plaintiff)

v

JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD (Defendant)

JUDGMENT (imputations - form - capacity – general-specific)

1 The plaintiffs sue in respect of the publication on 9 July 2001 in "The Sydney Morning Herald" of an article that bears the headline "Case against militants dropped after secret deal". The text of the article is appendix A to these reasons. 2 The first plaintiff who is described in the Amended Statement of Claim as the National Secretary of the second plaintiff, contends that the matter complained of contains 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, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), contends that it has been defamed by reason of the article carrying the following imputations: "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".