The ABC reports that Christopher Lamont has had a bit of a blow in the ACT Supreme Court for his efforts to sue Phillip Dwyer.
- Mr Lamont claimed he was defamed in two letters written by Mr Dywer to John Howard in April 2006, one of which was leaked to The Australian newspaper.
While the court has found, for the record, that he was defamed, the claim for damages has been dismissed.
It’s an expensive way to correct the record.
UPDATED: In the Canberra Times Jack Waterford, no stranger to defamation proceedings, has a lengthy look at what was involved here.
Loading ...
What’s Your opinion?
Yes you were defamed, no you can’t have any money
Oldest to Newst
That’s a bit embarrassing really. With a win like that you might be better off losing!
Given that defamation law is meant to act as compensation for a damaged reputation, the decision to award no damages basically means “yes, he insulted you, but your reputation is so poor that everybody thinks you’re crap anyway”.
And since this isn’t me that this is about, I can point at Mr Lamont and laugh…
It would be nice if more courts followed this example, and threw out blatant attempts at using the defo laws as a goldmine. Certainly refreshing to see.
Since I don’t understand either ‘qualified privilege’ or ‘judicial declaration’ I don’t have a clue what they’re saying.
*blush*