## Facts

- The dispute arose from public controversy over construction of a bridge connected with the Hindmarsh Island marina/development project in South Australia.
- The Conservation Council of South Australia Inc (the Council) ran an organised campaign opposing the bridge and, as part of that campaign, distributed newsletters and other material through its periodical.
- Wendy Chapman (a developer associated with the project, and sued alongside related parties in the litigation) alleged that a series of the Council’s publications defamed her in connection with the bridge and development.
- The proceedings concerned a set of numbered publications (commonly described as 11 publications) and numerous pleaded imputations; only some publications were found to be capable of identifying Chapman (“of and concerning” her) and conveying actionable meanings.
- Among the publications pursued at trial were:
  - **Publication No. 6**, alleged to convey that Chapman had commenced legal proceedings to suppress the Council’s legitimate exercise of free speech about the bridge.
  - **Publication No. 7**, alleged to convey that Chapman (and those associated with the development) were intimidating or oppressing local residents in relation to the bridge controversy and their ability to speak publicly.
  - **Publication No. 11**, alleged to reflect adversely on Chapman’s conduct in the development, planning, and consultation process for the project.
- The Council denied that the publications carried defamatory meanings and relied on two main defences:
  - **Fair comment** (comment on a matter of public interest); and
  - **Qualified privilege** (communications said to be made on a privileged occasion to an interested audience).
- Chapman alleged that, even if those defences were otherwise available, they were defeated because the Council’s publications were actuated by **malice** (an improper dominant purpose to injure reputation rather than to communicate for the privileged purpose).
- The Council contended its statements were made from environmental concern and as part of public debate about a significant planning and environmental issue.
- This decision is the **trial judgment** of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Williams J).

## Issues

1. Whether the pleaded publications were “of and concerning” Chapman and conveyed defamatory meanings to the ordinary reasonable reader, assessed in their full context.
2. Whether the actionable publications were protected by **fair comment** as comment on a matter of public interest.
3. Whether the actionable publications were protected by **qualified privilege**, having regard to the purpose of the communications and the interests of the recipients.
4. Whether **malice** was established so as to defeat any defence of fair comment and/or qualified privilege.
5. If liability was established, what amount of damages was appropriate to compensate Chapman and vindicate her reputation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Australia held that, from the set of publications sued upon, **three publications (including Publication Nos. 6, 7, and 11) were defamatory** of Chapman on the imputations upheld at trial.
- The Court rejected the Council’s defences of **fair comment** and **qualified privilege** in relation to the actionable publications.
- The Court found that **malice** was established so that, in any event, the asserted defences were not available for the defamatory publications.
- Judgment was entered for Chapman, and the Court awarded **$130,000 in damages**.

## Legal Principles

- Defamatory meaning is determined by the **natural and ordinary meaning** the publication would convey to the **ordinary reasonable reader**, considering the whole publication and its context.
- A plaintiff must show the matter complained of is **capable of identifying the plaintiff** (“of and concerning” the plaintiff), including by inference from surrounding facts known to readers.
- **Fair comment** may protect expressions of opinion on matters of public interest, but it does not protect defamatory matter that is not recognisable as comment, is not based on facts (stated or sufficiently indicated), or is not honestly held.
- **Qualified privilege** may protect a communication made where the publisher has an interest or duty to communicate information and recipients have a corresponding interest in receiving it; the protection may fail where the publication goes beyond what the occasion warrants.
- **Malice** defeats fair comment and qualified privilege where the dominant motive is improper (for example, using the occasion to injure the plaintiff), rather than to communicate for the purpose that justifies the defence.
- Damages in defamation may reflect **harm to reputation**, **hurt to feelings**, and the need for **vindication**, assessed by reference to the gravity of the imputations and the publication’s reach.

## Conclusion

In *Chapman v. Conservation Council of South Australia* ([2002] SASC 4), the Supreme Court of South Australia (Williams J) held that three campaign publications issued by the Conservation Council during the Hindmarsh Island bridge dispute conveyed defamatory imputations about Wendy Chapman, rejected fair comment and qualified privilege (finding malice), and awarded Chapman $130,000 in damages.


Chapman v. Conservation Council of South Australia, [2002] SASC 4