Adamson v Ede [2007] NSWSC 829

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Adamson v Ede [2007] NSWSC 829

HEARING DATE(S) : 27/02/07

JUDGMENT DATE : 1 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Adams J at 1

DECISION : I enter a verdict for the plaintiff and give judgment in the sum of $60,000. The defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs.

CATCHWORDS : Defamation - qualified privilege - motive to injure plaintiff - proof of malice - no defence

Bashford v Information Australia [2004] 218 CLR 366 Dickson v Earl of Wilton 175 ER 790 CASES CITED : Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102 Jackson & 9 Ors v TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 1229 Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR Toogood v Spyring 149 ER 1044

PARTIES : Christopher Michael Adamson Kenneth John Ede

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20311/04

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Mr K. Smark

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Mr Mark Morris

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

1 AUGUST 2007

20311/04 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL ADAMSON v KENNETH JOHN EDE

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction 1 The plaintiff was admitted as a solicitor in Queensland in November 1983, where he practised as a solicitor for about sixteen years, for which purpose he obtained practising certificates as required by the law of that State. On 5 July 1995 he was admitted as a legal practitioner in New South Wales and practised as such from that date to 30 June 2003, again having the requisite practising certificates permitting him to do so. For about a year the plaintiff ceased practising as a solicitor but recommenced on 5 July 2004 and continues to practise, holding a current practising certificate. The plaintiff and the defendant have known each other for some years but there was a falling out between them. 2 The defendant became aware some considerable time before the date of the defamatory conduct that the plaintiff was involved in litigation with one Mrs Elizabeth Fitzpatrick. It appears that the dispute between the plaintiff and Mrs Fitzpatrick concerned legal fees claimed by the plaintiff to be payable by Mrs Fitzpatrick. Although the defendant was aware that Mrs Fitzpatrick had been a neighbour of the plaintiff's, he had never met her and, for all practical purposes, she was a complete stranger to him. A day or so before 20 July 2004, the defendant became aware that the litigation was still on foot and of the identity of Mrs Fitzpatrick's solicitors. He immediately telephoned Mr Beazley and told him (inter alia) the following – 1. Christopher Michael Adamson was born Christopher Michael Adamski in Orange on 2 June 1953; 2. In 1977 he was convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales, not being a traffic offence and the criminal record number is 373404; 3. He changed his name from Christopher Michael Adamski to Christopher Michael Adamson and applied for admission as a solicitor in either Queensland or New South Wales; and 4. He did not disclose the fact that he had been convicted of any criminal offence in his application for admission or in any application for a practising certificate. 3 At the trial under s7A of the Defamation Act the jury found the following imputations were made by the defendant of the plaintiff – 1. In 1977 the plaintiff was convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales not being a traffic offence and his criminal record number is 3734044. 2. The plaintiff was convicted of a criminal offence of such seriousness and of such a nature as to evidence such a lack of good fame and character as may have prevented him from becoming admitted as a solicitor. 3. The plaintiff changed his name to facilitate his dishonest plan to hide his criminal record when he applied for admission as a solicitor or when he applied for a practising certificate. 4. The plaintiff acted dishonestly in his application for admission as a solicitor and in his application for a practising certificate by not disclosing that he had been convicted of a criminal offence which may have precluded him from being admitted and practising as a solicitor.