Jeff Manny v Warwick Shiels

JEFF MANNY

WARWICK SHIELS

[2013] HCASL 132
C3/2012

The respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant in 2005 alleging that he had been defamed by the applicant in a letter published to the Australian Federal Police ("the AFP"). The respondent obtained the letter as a result of a subpoena answered by the AFP in another proceeding.
In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the applicant claimed the letter was subject to an implied undertaking that, having been disclosed in the litigious process, it was to be used only for the purpose of the particular action, and claimed that the letter was protected by both absolute and qualified privilege. Gray J granted the respondent leave to use the letter on the ground that there were special circumstances. He found that the letter conveyed defamatory imputations and rejected the applicant's defence of absolute privilege under Mann v O'Neill[1], and qualified privilege on the ground that the applicant was actuated by malice, and found for the respondent in the defamation proceedings.
[1] (1997) 191 CLR 204; [1997] HCA 28.
The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Refshauge, Burns and Marshall JJ), which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the trial judge that there were special circumstances warranting leave to use the letter. It further held that it should follow Mann v O'Neill in dismissing the claim for absolute privilege, and agreed with the trial judge's conclusions on qualified privilege.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court. The amended application raises several grounds which, in substance, rely on the same complaints advanced before the Court of Appeal. The applicant also makes unparticularised allegations of bias on the part of Burns J sitting on the Court of Appeal.
The applicant has not demonstrated any error of principle in the approach taken by the Court of Appeal to any of the issues. In particular, the applicant offers no compelling reason to revisit the observations in Mann v O'Neill. Further, the applicant's claims of bias have no merit. An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant requires an enlargement of time of two days within which to file his application. An enlargement of time should be granted, but special leave to appeal should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

V.M. Bell
14 August 2013

S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeff Manny v Warwick Shiels involved a defamation claim brought by the respondent against the applicant, alleging that the applicant had defamed him in a letter published to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The letter was obtained by the respondent as a result of a subpoena answered by the AFP in another proceeding. The applicant sought to have the letter protected by an implied undertaking and by absolute and qualified privilege. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory found that the letter conveyed defamatory imputations and rejected the applicant's defence of absolute and qualified privilege. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.

The legal issues in the case included whether there were special circumstances warranting leave to use the letter, and whether the letter was protected by absolute or qualified privilege. The court was required to decide whether the applicant's defence of absolute privilege under Mann v O'Neill was valid, and whether the respondent was actuated by malice, which would affect the applicant's qualified privilege. The court also needed to consider whether there was any bias on the part of Burns J sitting on the Court of Appeal.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of principle in the approach taken by the Court of Appeal to any of the issues. The applicant offered no compelling reason to revisit the observations in Mann v O'Neill, and the claims of bias had no merit. The court concluded that an appeal to the High Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. However, the applicant was granted an enlargement of time of two days within which to file his application. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established