Disaggregating Co-Morbid Conditions in Guardianship Applications: When Medication Misuse, Personality Disorder and Mental Illness Cannot Ground a Guardianship Order

An Analysis of J [2026] WASAT 29

1.  Introduction

The decision of Senior Member Marillier in J [2026] WASAT 29 is a significant contribution to the jurisprudence of the State Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on the scope of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (“the GA Act”). The decision addresses a question of considerable practical importance for guardianship practitioners: where a represented person presents with multiple co-morbid conditions, which of those conditions can properly sustain a guardianship order?

The Tribunal’s analysis required the disaggregation of four distinct conditions — Cluster B personality disorder, bipolar affective disorder, chronic medication misuse, and mild cognitive impairment consistent with vascular dementia — and a principled determination of whether each condition, individually or in combination, met the statutory criteria in s 43(1)(b) and (c) of the GA Act.

The decision warrants close attention from practitioners for three reasons. First, it articulates a clear analytical framework for multi-diagnosis cases. Second, it draws a principled distinction between episodic substance-induced impairment and intrinsic cognitive incapacity, holding that the former does not constitute the “lack of decision-making ability” contemplated by the GA Act. Third, it demonstrates the evidentiary weight the Tribunal accords to longitudinal professional observation of functional deterioration when formal diagnostic evidence is equivocal.

2.  Relevant Legal Framework

The Statutory Test

Section 43(1) of the GA Act provides that the Tribunal may appoint a guardian for a person if satisfied that the person is: (a) incapable of looking after their own health and safety; (b) unable to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to their person; or (c) in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of their own health and safety or for the protection of others. In addition, s 43(1)(c) requires that the Tribunal be satisfied the person is “in need of a guardian.”

Section 4 of the GA Act sets out the principles governing the exercise of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, including the presumption of capacity, the requirement that any order be the least restrictive alternative, and the obligation to ascertain the views and wishes of the represented person.

The Concept of “Mental Disability” and the Legislative Purpose

The GA Act does not define “mental disability” in terms that prescribe specific diagnoses. In FY [2019] WASAT 118 at [32], the Full Tribunal confirmed that a finding of mental disability may rest on one or a combination of identified medical conditions, or it may be established where the underlying cause is not entirely clear or susceptible to a particular medical diagnosis, provided the existence of the mental disability is beyond doubt.

Senior Member Marillier drew on the long title of the GA Act and the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Legislative Assembly, 6 June 1990) to identify the legislative purpose. The long title describes the Act as providing “for the guardianship of adults who need assistance in their personal affairs.” The second reading speech contemplates that the Tribunal will appoint a guardian “only where it is established that a person lacks a decision-making ability” and identifies the intended beneficiaries as persons who, “as a result of” an intrinsic condition, “are unable to make decisions.”

S and SC [2015] WASAT 138

In S and SC [2015] WASAT 138, Member Leslie appointed a guardian for a man who consumed alcohol to the point of complete intoxication daily (at [84]). However, as the Tribunal in J noted, the critical finding in S and SC was that the chronic alcohol abuse had caused “significant memory deficits that are irreversible” rendering the represented person’s judgment impaired “even during the limited times when he is sober” (at [85]). The guardianship order was therefore grounded not in the intoxication itself but in the permanent cognitive damage it had caused.

3.  The Facts of the Case

The Represented Person and the Procedural History

J, a retired nurse in her mid-70s, was the subject of a fourth application to the Tribunal since January 2024 (at [1]). Her husband B applied under s 40 of the GA Act for the appointment of the Public Advocate as J’s guardian, citing medication misuse, falls, unresponsiveness, and calls to emergency services (at [23]).

The procedural history is striking. The first application in February 2024 resulted in the appointment of J’s adult children as limited guardians for three months to cover B’s overseas absence (at [7]). At review, equivocal capacity evidence led the Tribunal to revoke the order (at [10]). A second application in October 2024 culminated in J’s involuntary admission to an older adult psychiatric unit for 55 days (at [13], [21]), but the order was again dismissed after B confirmed he remained willing to provide support at home (at [22]).

The Medical Evidence

J’s diagnostic history was characterised by shifting and conflicting assessments across multiple clinicians and settings. A long-standing diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder was rescinded in 2021 during a 17-day hospital admission where lithium toxicity was identified (at [5]). A diagnosis of vascular dementia was made by physicians at two tertiary hospitals and a geriatrician during the same period, supported by a CT brain showing an old lacunar infarct and microvascular ischaemic change, and a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 10/30 (at [5], [67]).

During the 55-day psychiatric admission in late 2024, J’s Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) score was 72/100, below the highly specific cut-off of 82 (at [15], [68]). An MRI brain scan showed changes consistent with moderate chronic small vessel ischaemic change (at [16]). The treating psychiatrist diagnosed bipolar affective disorder with a resolving depressive relapse, co-morbid Cluster B personality disorder (emotionally unstable and histrionic), and mild cognitive impairment (at [16]). However, the psychiatrist subsequently retreated from the bipolar diagnosis in oral evidence, and the discharge summary listed only personality disorder and mild cognitive impairment (at [21], [58]).

The OAMHS psychiatrist, who had seen J three times in the preceding twelve months, remained unsure of J’s diagnosis or diagnoses and was unsure of her capacity in all three domains of personal decision-making (at [30], [32]). The OAMHS case manager described chronic medication misuse (particularly the analgesic Targin), urinary and faecal incontinence, neglect of personal hygiene, and social isolation (at [34]–[40]). Five emergency department attendances between July 2025 and January 2026 were documented, including three episodes of opioid intoxication (at [41]).

The Evidence of Functional Impairment

B’s oral evidence included that J could not work out how to use the keys to unlock the apartment from the inside, and could not heat pre-prepared meals in the microwave (at [43], [47], [72]). The OPA investigator observed physical deterioration since his previous visit, including visible faecal soiling, a nightshirt worn inside out, and increased agitation, while noting that J denied any continence issues and expressed anger at B for purchasing continence pads (at [51]).

4.  Analysis of the Tribunal’s Reasoning

The Disaggregation Methodology

The analytical structure adopted by Senior Member Marillier is the most significant methodological contribution of the decision. Rather than treating J’s multiple conditions as a composite clinical picture, the Tribunal assessed each condition separately against the statutory criteria, asking: does this condition, of itself, ground a guardianship order?

Personality Disorder

The Tribunal accepted that J had Cluster B personality disorders, supported by consistent family evidence over two years and findings by two psychiatrists (at [56]). However, Senior Member Marillier found that J had managed to pursue a professional career throughout adulthood, and the personality disorder was not causing a loss of capacity to make reasonable judgments, notwithstanding that it compromised her ability to maintain supportive relationships (at [56]). This is an important finding: personality disorder, even when diagnosed and behaviourally significant, is not of itself a basis for guardianship.

Mood Disorder

The Tribunal’s treatment of the mood disorder is nuanced. Senior Member Marillier was satisfied that J suffered from a mental illness causing recurrent crises, with two long hospital admissions and differing psychiatric opinions over time (at [60]). The Tribunal found that when acutely unwell, J was not able to make reasonable decisions. However, the Tribunal held that the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) was the relevant legislation for responding to J’s impaired decision-making during acute episodes, not the GA Act (at [60]). This channels acute psychiatric crises into the involuntary treatment regime and reserves guardianship for conditions with a more enduring character.

Medication Misuse

The Tribunal’s analysis of medication misuse at [61]–[66] is the centrepiece of the decision. Senior Member Marillier accepted that J had a long-standing pattern of medication misuse that put her health and safety at risk (at [62], [66]). However, the Tribunal held that “episodic intoxication due to substance misuse is not a basis for the Tribunal to appoint a guardian in the absence of cognitive impairment when not intoxicated” (at [62]).

This finding was grounded in a purposive analysis of the GA Act. The Tribunal looked to the long title and the second reading speech, observing that the legislation “appears to anticipate an intrinsic condition underpinning the appointment of a guardian rather than a temporary impairment predictably caused by a self-administered chemical agent” (at [64]). Senior Member Marillier drew a clear line: “[t]he Tribunal could and should not appoint a guardian for every person who has made or may make impaired decisions while intoxicated” (at [64]).

The Tribunal distinguished S and SC [2015] WASAT 138, where guardianship was appropriate because chronic alcohol abuse had caused irreversible cognitive deficits persisting during sobriety (at [65]–[66]). In J’s case, the medication misuse did not appear to cause cognitive impairment when she was not intoxicated (at [66]). Accordingly, the misuse contributed to risk but did not constitute a “lack of decision-making ability” with the “implication of chronicity” required by the legislation (at [66]).

Mild Cognitive Impairment / Vascular Dementia

Having excluded personality disorder, mood disorder, and medication misuse as independent grounds, the Tribunal turned to the cognitive impairment. Senior Member Marillier engaged carefully with the neuroimaging and psychometric evidence. The CT and MRI findings of cerebrovascular disease were accepted as structural abnormalities present for at least five years, unaffected by transient illness or medication (at [69]). The 2021 MoCA score of 10/30 was discounted because it occurred during lithium toxicity (at [70]). However, the ACE-III score of 72/100, obtained after three weeks as an inpatient and accepted by the treating psychiatrist as demonstrating at least mild cognitive impairment, was given significant weight (at [71]).

Critically, the Tribunal accorded substantial evidentiary weight to the longitudinal observations of the OAMHS clinicians and the OPA investigator, who had provided evidence across multiple hearings over two years and could attest to progressive deterioration in J’s functional capacity (at [73]). Senior Member Marillier described this longitudinal professional collateral evidence as “highly persuasive of a progressive neuro-degenerative condition” (at [73]).

On this basis, the Tribunal was satisfied that J suffered from a measurable cognitive impairment, accompanied by changes on brain imaging and progressive functional deterioration, consistent with the diagnosis of vascular dementia made in 2021, and that she had lost the capacity to make reasonable decisions about her person (at [74]–[75]).

5.  Assessing the Consequences

The practical consequences of the Tribunal’s disaggregation methodology are significant for both applicants and represented persons.

For applicants, the decision makes clear that applications grounded primarily in medication misuse or substance-related impairment face a high threshold. Unless the applicant can demonstrate that the substance misuse has caused permanent cognitive damage persisting during sobriety (as in S and SC), the intoxication itself — however dangerous — will not sustain an order. This has particular implications in cases involving elderly persons who misuse prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, or other medications, a scenario of increasing clinical prevalence.

For represented persons, the decision provides an important safeguard against the appointment of a guardian on the basis of behaviours that, however risky, are within the person’s autonomous decision-making. The Tribunal’s reasoning preserves the distinction between unwise decisions and incapable decisions — a distinction fundamental to the GA Act’s rights-based framework.

The decision also has systemic implications for the relationship between the GA Act and the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA). By channelling acute psychiatric crises into the involuntary treatment regime, the Tribunal reinforces the separate and distinct purposes of the two legislative schemes. The GA Act provides for ongoing substitute decision-making for persons with enduring incapacity; the Mental Health Act provides for crisis intervention and compulsory treatment for persons whose decision-making is temporarily impaired by acute mental illness.

6.  Worked Example

Consider a hypothetical represented person, “M,” aged 68, who has a history of alcohol use disorder and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. M lives alone. His adult daughter applies for a guardianship order after M is hospitalised three times in six months following falls sustained while intoxicated. M has been prescribed opioid pain medication for a fractured hip and has on two occasions taken more than the prescribed dose. A GP report states that M has a “possible mild cognitive impairment” but formal neuropsychological testing has not been undertaken. An MRI brain shows age-related changes only.

Applicant’s Perspective

The applicant would seek to establish that M’s combined alcohol misuse and medication misuse, in the context of his chronic illness and social isolation, have caused or are causing a progressive loss of decision-making capacity. She would point to the repeated hospitalisations as evidence that M is incapable of looking after his own health and safety (s 43(1)(b)). She should obtain formal neuropsychological testing (not merely GP screening) and, if possible, neuroimaging showing structural pathology beyond age-related changes. Without evidence of cognitive impairment persisting during sobriety, the application is at risk of failing on the reasoning in J at [62]–[66].

Represented Person’s Perspective

M’s representative would argue that M’s hospitalisations resulted from episodic intoxication and do not demonstrate an intrinsic lack of decision-making ability. Relying on J at [64], M would submit that the GA Act is not intended to appoint guardians for persons who make impaired decisions while intoxicated. M would resist formal neuropsychological testing if confident it would return a normal result, or seek to have testing conducted in optimal conditions. M would point to the absence of structural brain pathology beyond age-related changes as distinguishing his case from J, where both CT and MRI showed cerebrovascular disease.

7.  Practitioner Guidance: A Step-by-Step Framework

The following framework is derived from the Tribunal’s reasoning in J and is intended to assist practitioners advising clients in multi-diagnosis guardianship applications.

Step 1: Identify and Itemise Each Condition Separately.  Do not present the represented person’s conditions as a composite clinical picture. The Tribunal’s methodology requires each diagnosis to be assessed independently against the statutory criteria. Practitioners should ensure that medical reports address each condition separately and specify which condition or conditions are said to cause the loss of capacity.

Step 2: For Each Condition, Ask Whether It Causes an Intrinsic Loss of Decision-Making Ability.  Apply the test derived from the long title and second reading speech as articulated at [63]–[64]: does this condition cause a lack of decision-making ability that is intrinsic rather than the temporary, predictable result of a self-administered chemical agent? If the impairment is episodic and substance-induced, it will not sustain an order unless permanent cognitive damage has resulted (S and SC at [85]).

Step 3: Consider the Appropriate Legislative Regime.  If the represented person’s impaired decision-making arises from acute mental illness, consider whether the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) is the more appropriate vehicle for intervention (at [60]). The GA Act is reserved for enduring incapacity, not crisis management.

Step 4: Obtain and Present Objective Cognitive Evidence.  Formal psychometric testing (ACE-III, MoCA, or neuropsychological assessment) and neuroimaging (CT or MRI brain) are essential where cognitive impairment is alleged. The Tribunal will scrutinise the circumstances in which testing was conducted: scores obtained during acute illness or medication toxicity may be discounted (at [70]), while scores obtained after a period of stabilisation carry greater weight (at [71]).

Step 5: Assemble Longitudinal Evidence of Functional Deterioration.  The Tribunal placed significant weight on the longitudinal observations of the OAMHS clinicians and the OPA investigator, describing their evidence of progressive deterioration as “highly persuasive” (at [73]). Practitioners should seek to adduce evidence from clinicians or professionals who have observed the represented person over time, not merely at a single point in time.

Step 6: Address Need Separately from Capacity.  Even where the capacity threshold is met, the Tribunal must be separately satisfied that the person is “in need of a guardian” (s 43(1)(c)). The Tribunal’s analysis at [76]–[80] shows that need may be absent where an informal carer is willing and able to provide adequate support. The need inquiry is dynamic: what was unnecessary at one hearing may become necessary at the next if the carer’s willingness or ability changes.

Step 7: Ascertain and Present the Represented Person’s Views.  Section 4 of the GA Act requires the Tribunal to ascertain the represented person’s views and wishes. Where the represented person does not attend, practitioners should ensure that the OPA investigator or another independent person has met with the represented person and can convey their views (at [50]–[54], [81]). The Tribunal may decline to follow those wishes but must address them.

8.  Evidence and Arguments Available to Each Side

For the Applicant

An applicant in a multi-diagnosis case should: (a) obtain medical reports that disaggregate each condition and address its individual effect on capacity; (b) secure formal cognitive testing conducted during a period of clinical stability, not during acute illness or intoxication; (c) obtain neuroimaging to identify structural brain pathology; (d) adduce longitudinal evidence from clinicians who have observed the represented person over an extended period; (e) if medication misuse is a significant feature, present evidence that it has caused permanent cognitive damage persisting during sobriety, relying on S and SC at [85]; (f) address the need requirement separately, with evidence of the inadequacy of less restrictive alternatives; and (g) ensure that the represented person’s views have been obtained and can be presented to the Tribunal.

For the Represented Person

A represented person resisting a guardianship application in a multi-diagnosis case should: (a) challenge each condition separately, arguing that personality disorder does not cause incapacity (at [56]), that acute mental illness is properly addressed under the Mental Health Act 2014 (at [60]), and that substance-induced impairment is not an intrinsic lack of decision-making ability (at [62]–[66]); (b) challenge the reliability of cognitive testing conducted during periods of acute illness, medication toxicity, or hospitalisation; (c) present evidence of functional capacity during periods of stability; (d) argue that less restrictive alternatives exist, such as informal carer support, community services, or three-day medication dispensing (at [61], [76]); and (e) assert the person’s own views and wishes, including their opposition to the appointment of a guardian.

9.  Key Takeaways for Legal Practice

1.  Disaggregate co-morbid conditions.  The Tribunal requires each diagnosis to be assessed independently against the statutory criteria. A composite clinical picture is insufficient; each condition must be shown to cause, or contribute to, a loss of decision-making ability.

2.  Episodic intoxication is not a basis for guardianship.  Medication misuse or substance misuse that causes temporary impairment while intoxicated does not constitute the “lack of decision-making ability” contemplated by the GA Act unless permanent cognitive damage has resulted.

3.  Personality disorder does not equate to incapacity.  A personality disorder, even when diagnosed and behaviourally significant, is not of itself a basis for guardianship. The Tribunal will look for evidence of whether the person was able to function independently throughout adulthood despite the personality disorder.

4.  Acute mental illness is addressed under the Mental Health Act.  The GA Act provides for enduring substitute decision-making. Where the represented person’s impaired decision-making arises from an acute psychiatric episode, the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) is the appropriate legislative vehicle.

5.  Cognitive testing must be contextualised.  Scores obtained during lithium toxicity, acute illness, or medication side effects may be discounted. Testing conducted after a period of clinical stabilisation carries greater weight.

6.  Longitudinal professional evidence is highly persuasive.  The Tribunal placed significant weight on the evidence of clinicians and OPA investigators who had observed the represented person across multiple hearings over two years. Single-point-in-time assessments are less compelling.

7.  Neuroimaging supports the case for structural pathology.  CT and MRI findings of cerebrovascular disease were accepted as objective evidence unaffected by transient illness or medication, providing a stable foundation for the finding of cognitive impairment.

8.  The need requirement is dynamic and must be addressed at each hearing.  A person may have lost capacity but not be “in need” of a guardian where adequate informal support exists. The inquiry is situational and may change between hearings as the carer’s willingness or ability to continue fluctuates.

9.  The Tribunal will not allow withdrawal without scrutiny.  Where the procedural history and cognitive evidence warrant continued oversight, the Tribunal may decline to permit withdrawal of an application, as occurred at the second application stage (at [19]).

10.  Participation and communication support matter.  The Tribunal arranged voice-to-text instant transcription to accommodate J’s hearing impairment and the OPA investigator communicated by typing questions for J to answer verbally (at [8], [50]). Practitioners should consider and advocate for appropriate communication supports where a represented person has sensory impairments.

10.  Conclusion

J [2026] WASAT 29 provides a disciplined analytical framework for multi-diagnosis guardianship applications. By requiring each co-morbid condition to be assessed independently, the Tribunal has clarified the limits of the GA Act’s reach and reinforced the distinction between temporary, substance-induced impairment and the enduring cognitive incapacity that the legislation was enacted to address.

The decision’s central message for practitioners is one of analytical rigour: identify each condition, assess its individual effect on capacity, and present evidence that is both objective and longitudinal. Applications that rest on a generalised impression of incapacity, or that conflate the effects of substance misuse with intrinsic cognitive decline, will not succeed. Equally, represented persons can take comfort that the Tribunal will not strip their autonomy on the basis of behaviours — however risky — that do not demonstrate an enduring loss of the ability to make decisions.

The decision also serves as a reminder that the GA Act and the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) serve distinct purposes. Guardianship is not a crisis-response tool; it provides for ongoing substitute decision-making where a person’s intrinsic capacity is permanently or progressively diminished. Where the impairment is acute, episodic, or substance-induced, other legislative regimes are more appropriate.

The Indivisibility of Decision and Reasoning: Why Courts Cannot Judicially Review Findings Without Disturbing the Decision

An Analysis of Re Magistrate Robert Young; Ex parte J C [2026] WASC 115

 1. Introduction

In Re Magistrate Robert Young; Ex parte J C [2026] WASC 115, Palmer J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed an application for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) (the Act). The decision addresses a question of practical importance: whether the reasoning of a magistrate may be judicially reviewed independently of the magistrate’s ultimate decision.

The applicant, who had succeeded in resisting a Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) application before Magistrate Young, sought to quash certain findings and reasoning in his Honour’s decision while preserving the favourable outcome — the dismissal of the FVRO application. Palmer J held that s 36(1) of the Act does not permit the review of reasons independently of the decision itself, and that a finding of jurisdictional error would necessarily vitiate the entire decision, including the outcome the applicant wished to preserve.

The decision warrants the attention of practitioners in all areas of Magistrates Court litigation. It clarifies the indivisibility of a decision and its reasoning in the context of judicial review, reinforces the distinction between jurisdictional error and error within jurisdiction, and illustrates of the limits of review proceedings — particularly for self-represented litigants who may be dissatisfied with aspects of a judgment but not its result.

2. Relevant Legal Framework

The statutory review mechanism under s 36

Section 36(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) provides a statutory alternative to the prerogative writs. It empowers an aggrieved person to apply to the Supreme Court for a “review order” in respect of an act, order, or direction of a court officer that was made without jurisdiction or power, or on any ground that might have justified certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition (at [8]).

The procedure under Order 56A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) involves a two-stage process. At the first stage, the application is heard ex parte before a judge in chambers. A review order will be made if the material demonstrates reasonable prospects of success. If a review order is made, the matter proceeds to a second hearing at which affected parties may appear and be heard (at [10]–[12]).

Jurisdictional error and inferior courts

The concept of jurisdictional error, as described by Hayne J in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57, involves a decision-maker acting outside the limits of the functions and powers conferred upon them, as distinct from incorrectly deciding a matter within jurisdiction (at [18]).

Palmer J reiterated that it is more difficult to demonstrate jurisdictional error on the part of an inferior court than in the case of an administrative decision-maker (at [19]), citing Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 and Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) [2010] HCA 1.

His Honour set out the five established categories of jurisdictional error in respect of inferior courts, drawn from Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219 and Re State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125, together with the additional category of denial of procedural fairness (at [20]–[21]).

Reasons and the record

A distinction, drawn from Craig v South Australia at 182–183 and reinforced in Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357, is that the reasons for decision of an inferior court are not part of the “record” unless there is an error of law on the face of the record. An error of law in the reasons is not, without more, a ground that might have justified certiorari (at [22]–[23]).

Discretionary refusal

Even where the grounds for a review order are established, the grant of relief remains discretionary. In Blum v Boothman [2014] WASC 452, Mitchell J refused a review order on discretionary grounds because the order had expired and certiorari would lack utility (at [24]).

3. The Facts of the Case

Background: the FVRO Application

The proceedings arose out of a Family Violence Restraining Order application brought by the applicant’s former partner. The FVRO application had generated extensive prior litigation, including two appeals to the District Court, an application to transfer the FVRO proceedings to the Supreme Court (JC v TH [2025] WASC 91), and earlier judicial review proceedings (Ex parte J C [2025] WASC 99) (at [2]).

On 5 August 2025, Magistrate Young heard the FVRO application and dismissed it. The applicant succeeded (at [3]).

The applicant’s dissatisfaction with the reasoning

Despite prevailing on the ultimate question, the applicant was dissatisfied with the Magistrate’s conduct of the proceedings and certain findings in his reasons. The applicant’s complaints included that the Magistrate had found a threat to kill was made (albeit in jest), had made a finding that family violence occurred despite the Family Court making no such determinative finding, had failed to engage with exculpatory evidence including an audio recording, had made prejudicial remarks describing the applicant as “puerile,” “childish,” and “bloody-minded,” and had misapplied the statutory test under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (at [27]–[33]).

The relief sought

The applicant sought to quash Magistrate Young’s factual findings “without disturbing the dismissal of the final restraining order itself” (at [26]). This position was maintained throughout the proceedings. Draft orders filed on 20 October 2025 expressly sought that “the dismissal of the restraining order application by Magistrate Young remain undisturbed” (at [35]). The applicant characterised his application as seeking review of the “reasoning process” rather than the decision (at [36]).

Multiple submissions

The applicant filed a supplementary originating process on 3 September 2025 identifying twelve grounds of review (at [34]), submissions on 25 November 2025 referring to a large number of cases without properly explaining their relevance (at [40]), and further submissions on 15 January 2026 repeating similar assertions (at [41]).

4. Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

The indivisibility principle

The central holding of the decision is unequivocal. Palmer J held that s 36(1) of the Act “does not provide for the judicial review of reasons for a decision, independently and separately from, a review of the decision itself” (at [44]).

His Honour’s reasoning proceeded on two bases. First, as a matter of statutory construction, ss 36(1)(b) and (c) provide for the review of an “act, order or direction” and do not, in their terms, make provision for a review of the reasons why an officer took that act or made that order (at [45]). Second, as a matter of legal principle, where an inferior court has committed jurisdictional error, the consequence is that the entire decision has no legal force. A successful challenge to the Magistrate’s reasoning on jurisdictional error grounds would therefore necessarily vitiate his Honour’s ultimate decision to dismiss the FVRO application (at [46]).

The applicant’s case authorities

The applicant referred to various cases which he claimed demonstrated that reasons could be reviewed without disturbing the ultimate decision. Palmer J found that the applicant’s submissions “failed to meaningfully engage with what was decided in those cases, or how they established the proposition claimed” and that none of the cases appeared to address the issues raised (at [47]).

No reasonable prospect of success

Palmer J concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success (at [42], [49]). The costs application relief sought in the draft orders was found to be beyond the scope of the Judicial Review Application (at [50]).

5. Assessing the Consequences

The logical impossibility of selective review

The decision exposes a logical impossibility at the heart of the applicant’s case. Judicial review for jurisdictional error is a binary instrument: if jurisdictional error is established, the decision is void. There is no mechanism to declare that the decision-maker’s reasoning was vitiated by jurisdictional error while simultaneously preserving the operative decision that the reasoning produced.

This has practical consequences. A successful litigant who is dissatisfied with judicial reasoning but content with the result faces a choice: accept the decision in its entirety (reasoning and all), or challenge the decision and risk losing the favourable outcome. There is no middle path.

Reputational harm and the limits of judicial review

Findings of family violence and a threat to kill, even in the context of an ultimately dismissed FVRO application, remain on the public record and may carry reputational consequences. However, Palmer J’s decision confirms that judicial review under s 36 is not the mechanism by which such concerns are addressed. The statutory regime is directed at the legality of decisions, not the curating of judicial observations.

Costs of unsuccessful applications

The applicant, who was self-represented, filed multiple rounds of submissions, a supplementary originating process, and draft orders over a period of several months. The decision illustrates the investment of court and party resources that can be consumed by applications which, are directed at relief that the court has no jurisdiction to grant.

6. Worked Example

Consider a hypothetical scenario. A respondent in proceedings before the Magistrates Court successfully resists a claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The Magistrate dismisses the claim but, in the course of the reasons, makes adverse findings about the respondent’s credibility and commercial conduct — findings that the respondent considers factually wrong and potentially damaging to their business reputation.

The respondent’s perspective

The respondent wishes to have the adverse findings set aside. They consult a lawyer about applying for a review order under s 36 of the Act. The lawyer must advise that a review order directed at the Magistrate’s reasoning, without disturbing the dismissal of the claim, is not available. If jurisdictional error were established in the Magistrate’s fact-finding process, the entire decision — including the dismissal — would be void. The respondent would then face a rehearing at which they might not succeed.

The claimant’s perspective

If the respondent were to bring a review application challenging the reasoning, the original claimant could point to Ex parte J C [2026] WASC 115 and submit that the application discloses no reasonable prospect of success, since the applicant does not seek to disturb the operative decision. The claimant could also raise the discretionary ground that the application lacks utility: the findings, while recorded in the reasons, have no operative legal effect.

The practical lesson

The lawyer’s advice must be that the respondent’s remedy, if any, lies outside the judicial review jurisdiction. If the adverse findings are causing concrete harm (for example, being cited in other proceedings), they may need to be addressed in those other proceedings on their merits. Judicial review is not a mechanism for editing judgments.

7. Practitioner Guidance: A Step-by-Step Framework

Step 1: Identify the decision, not the reasoning. When a client is dissatisfied with a Magistrates Court outcome, the first question is whether the complaint is directed at the decision (the act, order, or direction) or at the reasoning. Section 36(1) only provides for review of the former (at [44]–[45]).

Step 2: Assess whether the client is prepared to risk the outcome. If the complaint is with the reasoning but the decision was favourable, the client must be advised that a successful jurisdictional error challenge would void the entire decision, including the favourable outcome (at [46]). If the client is not prepared to accept that consequence, a review application is not appropriate.

Step 3: Distinguish jurisdictional error from error within jurisdiction. It is more difficult to establish jurisdictional error on the part of an inferior court than an administrative decision-maker (at [19]). Mere errors of law in the reasoning, without more, do not constitute grounds for certiorari (at [22]–[23]). Apply the five established categories of jurisdictional error set out by Palmer J at [20].

Step 4: Check whether errors appear on the face of the record. For an inferior court, the reasons for decision are not part of the “record” unless there is an error of law on the face of the record (at [23], citing Craig v South Australia at 182–183). If the error is confined to the reasons and does not appear on the face of the record, the remedy lies in the appellate process, not judicial review (at [22]).

Step 5: Consider discretionary grounds for refusal. Even where jurisdictional error is established, relief is discretionary (at [24]). If the relief sought would lack utility — for example, because the order has expired, or the applicant does not wish to disturb the decision — the court may refuse a review order.

Step 6: Engage meaningfully with case authorities. Palmer J criticised the applicant’s submissions for referring to cases without properly explaining why they established the propositions claimed or how those propositions advanced the applicant’s case (at [40]–[41], [47]). Submissions that merely assert that cases stand for propositions, without analysis, are unlikely to persuade.

Step 7: Confine the application to the scope of the originating process. Relief sought must fall within the scope of the judicial review application as filed. Palmer J noted that the costs application relief in the draft orders appeared to be beyond the scope of the present application (at [50]).

8. Evidence and Arguments Available to Each Side

For an applicant seeking review of reasoning

An applicant in an analogous position would need to overcome the obstacle identified by Palmer J: that s 36(1) does not provide for review of reasons independently of the decision. Arguments that might be advanced include:

First, that the impugned findings constitute a separate “act” or “direction” within the meaning of s 36(1)(c), distinct from the ultimate disposition. Palmer J did not accept this in the present case, but a differently constituted set of facts — for example, where findings have direct operative legal consequences independent of the disposition — might present a stronger argument.

Second, that the reasoning discloses a denial of procedural fairness (the sixth category of jurisdictional error at [21]) which can be addressed without disturbing the outcome — though this argument faces the same difficulty that jurisdictional error vitiates the entire decision.

Third, that the court’s inherent jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction provides a basis for declaratory relief concerning the reasoning, independent of the statutory mechanism in s 36. This argument was not developed in the present case.

For a respondent opposing such an application

A respondent would rely directly on Palmer J’s reasoning:

First, that the plain language of s 36(1) is directed at acts, orders, and directions, not at reasons or findings (at [45]).

Second, that jurisdictional error necessarily vitiates the entire decision, making selective review logically impossible (at [46]).

Third, that even if some basis for review could be found, discretionary refusal would be appropriate where the applicant does not wish to disturb the operative decision and the relief sought therefore lacks utility.

9. Key Takeaways for Legal Practice

1. Reasons cannot be reviewed independently of the decision. Section 36(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) provides for review of an “act, order or direction,” not for review of the reasoning that led to it. A decision and its reasoning are indivisible for the purposes of judicial review (at [44]–[45]).

2. Jurisdictional error vitiates the entire decision. If jurisdictional error is established, the decision has no legal force. An applicant cannot selectively challenge findings while preserving the operative outcome (at [46]).

3. The “reasonable prospect of success” threshold requires more than dissatisfaction. At the first stage of the O 56A process, the applicant must demonstrate a case with reasonable prospects of success (at [12], [42]). Disagreement with findings, however strong, is insufficient if the relief sought is not available.

4. Inferior court reasons are not part of the “record” unless error appears on its face. An error of law in the reasons of an inferior court is not, without more, a ground for certiorari (at [22]–[23]). Errors confined to the reasons must be addressed through the appellate process.

5. Submissions must meaningfully engage with authority. Asserting that cases stand for propositions without explaining why, or how those propositions advance the applicant’s case, is unlikely to succeed and may attract judicial criticism (at [40]–[41], [47]).

6. Relief must fall within the scope of the originating process. Additional heads of relief that are beyond the scope of the application as filed may not be entertained (at [50]).

7. Discretionary refusal may apply even where grounds are established. The grant of a review order is discretionary. Where the relief sought would lack utility, the court may refuse the order (at [24]).

8. Self-represented litigants are held to the same jurisdictional limits. The decision illustrates that the court cannot extend its review jurisdiction beyond statutory limits to accommodate the concerns of a litigant who has, in fact, succeeded.

10. Conclusion

Re Magistrate Robert Young; Ex parte J C [2026] WASC 115 provides an authoritative statement that judicial review under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) is directed at decisions, not reasoning. A decision and its reasoning are indivisible: an applicant cannot surgically excise findings from a judgment while leaving the operative order intact.

The decision is a reminder for practitioners advising clients who are dissatisfied with aspects of a judgment. The first question must always be: what is the decision, and does the client wish to challenge it? If the answer to the second question is no, then judicial review is not the appropriate avenue, regardless of how unsatisfactory the reasoning may appear.

For self-represented litigants and practitioners alike, the case underscores the importance of understanding the jurisdictional limits of review proceedings before committing resources to an application. Dissatisfaction with judicial reasoning is not, by itself, a gateway to judicial review. The law draws a clear line between the legality of a decision and the acceptability of its reasoning, and s 36 addresses only the former.

The Duty to Exercise Independent Forensic Judgment: When Lawyers Must Overrule Their Clients on Evidence

An Analysis of Bailey and Petersen [2026] FCWA 50

1.  Introduction

All names used in this article are pseudonyms assigned by the Court. The judgment was published under those pseudonyms with the approval of the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). No details in this article identify or are intended to identify any party, witness, or associated person.

Bailey and Petersen [2026] FCWA 50 is a judgment of O’Brien J in the Family Court of Western Australia, delivered on 16 March 2026, that warrants close attention from all legal practitioners—not merely family lawyers. While the decision arose in the context of a parenting dispute under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), its analysis of the professional obligations of lawyers in relation to the evidence they place before a court has application across all areas of legal practice.

The judgment addresses a question that arises with regularity in contested proceedings: what is a lawyer to do when a client insists upon filing evidence that is irrelevant, lacking in probative value, or gratuitous? O’Brien J’s answer is unequivocal. The lawyer must exercise independent forensic judgment. That duty is not merely aspirational; it is mandatory. It cannot be displaced by client instructions, client preferences, or client-drafted affidavits. A lawyer who files irrelevant material has failed in a professional obligation.

The significance of the decision lies in its clarity. It consolidates, in accessible terms, the interplay between the overarching purpose provisions of the Family Law Act, the specific powers of the Court in child-related proceedings, and the professional conduct obligations imposed on solicitors and barristers. It does so by reference to a concrete and, as the Court acknowledged, “stark” example (at [94]).

2.  Relevant Legal Framework

2.1  The overarching purpose provisions

Section 95 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets out the overarching purpose of practice and procedure provisions. That purpose is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes in a manner that, among other things, ensures the safety of families and children, promotes the best interests of the child, and achieves resolution “as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible” (s 95(1)(d)). Section 95(2)(e) requires the disposal of proceedings “at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.”

Section 96 imposes a duty on parties to conduct proceedings consistently with that overarching purpose. Lawyers have a corresponding duty to assist their client to comply with it. As O’Brien J observed at [17], these are duties imposed by statute, not mere aspirations.

2.2  The Court’s powers in child-related proceedings

Section 102NE provides that the Court must actively direct, control and manage the conduct of child-related proceedings. Section 102NN confers broad powers to give directions or make orders about, among other things, the matters on which parties may present evidence, who may give evidence, and the number of witnesses (s 102NN(2)(j)). The Court may also limit or disallow cross-examination of a particular witness (s 102NN(2)(i)).

2.3  The professional conduct obligations

The duties of lawyers as officers of the court are reinforced by the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (WA), r 17, and the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barrister) Rules 2015 (WA), rr 42–43. O’Brien J summarised the effect at [23]: lawyers must not act as the “mere mouthpiece” of their client. They are required to exercise independent forensic judgment and do not breach their duty to the client by doing so, even where it means acting contrary to instructions.

2.4  Relevance, admissibility and probative value

Rule 239 of the Family Court Rules 2021 (WA) reflects the fundamental principle that evidence at trial should be limited to facts that are relevant, admissible, and of probative value (at [9]). O’Brien J emphasised that the relaxed evidentiary regime in parenting proceedings—section 102NL permits opinion and hearsay evidence—does not equate admissibility with relevance or probative value (at [12]). The distinction between the unqualified opinion of a lay witness and expert opinion evidence, as discussed in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 at 743–744 [85], remains critical.

3.  The Facts of the Case

The proceedings concerned parenting arrangements for two children, Charlie (born 2017) and Henry (born 2019), following the separation of Mr Bailey and Ms Petersen. The proceedings were commenced in May 2020 and listed for a seven-day trial before O’Brien J in 2026. Both parties were legally represented. Between them, they proposed to call 25 witnesses (at [1]).

At a Status Hearing in early 2026, the Court confirmed the matters actually in issue. Both parties agreed, through their respective counsel, on a series of concessions that materially narrowed the dispute. These included that there was no risk of the children being exposed to family violence, abuse or neglect in the care of either parent (at [3](a)); that each parent was competent and attentive (at [3](c)); and that both were devoted and engaged parents (at [4](b)). The only identified risk to the children was exposure to the negativity of each parent about the other (at [4](a)).

Against that narrow factual matrix, O’Brien J expressed surprise at both the proposed trial length and the number of lay witnesses: seven for the wife and ten for the husband (at [5]). The Court required counsel to be prepared to make submissions at trial as to why each affidavit, other than those of the parties themselves, the Single Expert Witness, and the family therapist, should be received into evidence (at [6]).

3.1  The husband’s proposed evidence

The husband proposed to rely on evidence from 13 witnesses in addition to his own three affidavits. The Court’s treatment of each is instructive.

Of the 13, counsel for the husband conceded that the evidence of five witnesses—Mr Morgan (at [39]), Mr Becker (at [41]), Ms Orson (at [52]), Mr Leroy (at [54]), Mr Whit (at [56]), and Ms Douglas (at [64])—had no probative value. The concession that Ms Frances Bailey’s evidence similarly lacked probative value followed (at [58]). A subpoena for Dr Johnson was discharged before trial (at [32]).

Three further affidavits were excluded after contested submissions. The affidavit of Ms Radu, a clinical psychologist who had seen the parties years before the children were born, was excluded on the basis that the matters it addressed—an admitted slap and admitted communication difficulties—were already established (at [37]). The affidavits of Mr Robert Bailey and Ms Eliot, siblings of the husband who had limited contact with the children, were excluded for having little relevance and no probative value (at [46], [50]).

Only two affidavits beyond the husband’s own were admitted: that of Ms Michelle Bailey, his mother, who had lived with him and had significant contact with the children, and whose evidence was relevant to an issue raised in the Single Expert Witness’s report (at [60]–[62]); and that of Mr Visser, the husband’s treating psychologist, given the currency of his professional engagement (at [69]).

3.2  The wife’s proposed evidence

The wife proposed seven lay and professional witnesses in addition to her own affidavits. Five lay witness affidavits—from a high school friend, a brother-in-law, a neighbour, a mothers’ group friend, and a retired professional—were sensibly abandoned at trial (at [73]).

The affidavit of Mr Joshua Petersen, the wife’s brother, was excluded. It contained extensive personal history, including detail of shared cooking arrangements in Europe in 2006–2007, and was characterised by gratuitous commentary about the husband’s career and ambition (at [82]–[85]).

The affidavits of Ms Suzanne Petersen (the wife’s mother, admitted due to her active involvement and at the husband’s request for cross-examination: at [77]–[78]), Ms Curtis (treating psychologist, admitted for currency of engagement: at [81]), Dr Joyce (paediatrician, clearly relevant to a medical dispute: at [87]), and Dr Carrillo (general practitioner, relevant to the same dispute: at [90]) were received.

3.3  Outcome

Of 25 proposed witnesses, the affidavits of 16 were not received into evidence (at [92]). The trial proceeded with the evidence of the parties, six professional witnesses, and one lay witness for each side.

4.  Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

4.1  The “prospective and predictive exercise”

O’Brien J’s reasoning is anchored in the characterisation of parenting orders as a “prospective and predictive exercise” (at [13]). The Court’s task is to determine what arrangements will best serve the children’s interests going forward, informed by relevant past events but not overwhelmed by them. “Cradle to grave” affidavits are rarely informative for that purpose.

4.2  The distinction between admissibility and probative value

The relaxed evidentiary provisions of s 102NL allow opinion and hearsay evidence in parenting proceedings. O’Brien J was at pains to emphasise that admissibility does not equate to relevance or probative value (at [12]). This is a point of general application. The fact that evidence may be received does not mean it should be. The gateway of admissibility is necessary but not sufficient.

4.3  The problem with lay opinion evidence

The judgment draws a clear line between lay opinion and expert opinion. A friend’s view that the husband is a good father, a brother-in-law’s assessment of the husband’s career ambition, or a neighbour’s impression of the wife’s parenting are, in practical terms, testimonials. They carry no weight in a forensic exercise where the Court has the benefit of expert evidence from a Single Expert Witness, a family therapist, and relevant treating professionals. As O’Brien J noted, the distinction identified in Makita at [85] between unqualified lay opinion and expert evidence remains critical (at [12]).

4.4  The “forensic disadvantage” test

A notable feature of the judgment is the role played by the opposing party’s position in the admissibility determination. In several instances, the Court admitted evidence where the opposing counsel identified a forensic disadvantage in not being able to cross-examine the witness. This arose with Ms Michelle Bailey (at [61]), Ms Suzanne Petersen (at [77]), Ms Curtis (at [80]), and Mr Visser (at [68], though there the wife’s counsel did not perceive disadvantage and the affidavit was admitted on other grounds). Where neither party perceived a forensic need for the evidence, exclusion followed.

4.5  The 220 photographs

O’Brien J’s observation about the 220 “happy photographs” annexed to the parties’ affidavits (at [27]) is a pointed illustration. No photograph of a child looking happy has probative value in proceedings where both parents are acknowledged to be devoted and competent. While self-represented litigants might mistakenly think such material serves a forensic purpose, the Court observed that “there is frankly no excuse for lawyers seeking to adduce them into evidence.”

5.  Assessing the Consequences of Non-Compliance

O’Brien J identified three categories of consequence flowing from the failure to exercise independent forensic judgment on evidence.

5.1  Costs to the parties

The parties incurred unnecessary costs in the preparation, drafting, settling, filing and serving of 16 affidavits that were ultimately excluded (at [95]). Each affidavit involved time spent by the deponent in preparation, time spent by the lawyer in settling and filing, and associated court filing fees. The costs extend to the preparation of cross-examination plans for witnesses who were never called.

5.2  Delay to the parties

The inflated witness list drove an estimate of seven trial days. That estimate in turn limited the listing options available, such that earlier dates that would otherwise have been utilised could not be (at [96]). The parties’ own progress to trial was thereby delayed.

5.3  Impact on other litigants

The seven days allocated to the matter could not be allocated to other families (at [97]). This is a point of systemic significance. Court time is a finite public resource. Its inefficient consumption by one matter has a direct and measurable impact on every other matter awaiting hearing.

6.  Worked Example: Applying the Principles

Consider a hypothetical parenting dispute with the following features. The parties agree that each is a competent parent. The dispute concerns the division of time and a disagreement about schooling. Each party proposes to call five lay witnesses comprising family members and friends. The single expert has provided a report. A family therapist has been appointed.

6.1  From the perspective of the party proposing the evidence

The practitioner must undertake a rigorous assessment of each proposed witness before any affidavit is drafted. The questions to ask are:

First, what is the matter in issue to which this witness’s evidence is directed? If the answer is a generalised proposition—“my client is a good parent”—the evidence is almost certainly without probative value where that proposition is not in dispute.

Second, does this witness have direct knowledge of a fact that is genuinely contested and that cannot be established by other evidence already before the Court? If the Single Expert Witness and the parties’ own evidence already address the issue, a lay witness’s observations will add nothing.

Third, is this witness offering opinion evidence? If so, is the witness qualified to give that opinion? The unqualified opinion of a family member that a parent is “demanding” or “lacks ambition” has no forensic utility.

Fourth, will the evidence withstand the scrutiny applied by O’Brien J? Would counsel be able to articulate, with precision, the probative value of the evidence if required to do so by the Court?

6.2  From the perspective of the party opposing the evidence

The practitioner should consider whether there is a genuine forensic disadvantage in the evidence being excluded. If the answer is no—if the evidence, even if admitted, would not affect the outcome—the practitioner should say so. This is what occurred in several instances in Bailey and Petersen (see, for example, at [68] where counsel for the wife confirmed no forensic disadvantage in excluding Mr Visser’s evidence).

Conversely, where the opposing party’s witness has made allegations that require testing, the practitioner should identify the forensic disadvantage of exclusion. This is what occurred with Ms Michelle Bailey (at [61]) and Ms Suzanne Petersen (at [77]), where opposing counsel’s submission that exclusion would cause forensic disadvantage contributed to the evidence being admitted.

7.  Practitioner Guidance: A Step-by-Step Framework

The following framework, derived from the principles stated in Bailey and Petersen, is applicable to any proceedings in which a practitioner is considering what evidence to file.

Step 1: Identify the matters in issue.

Before any affidavit is drafted, the practitioner must clearly identify the matters actually in dispute. As O’Brien J observed, this must occur at an early stage and before trial affidavits are prepared, “for obvious reasons” (at [10]).

Step 2: Assess each proposed witness against the issues.

For each proposed witness, the practitioner must determine whether their evidence is directed to a matter genuinely in issue, whether it is relevant and of probative value, and whether it is duplicative of evidence already before the Court.

Step 3: Exercise independent forensic judgment on client-drafted material.

Where clients or witnesses have prepared initial drafts of affidavits, the practitioner has a duty to review, edit, and if necessary refuse to file that material. The duty extends to the “deletion of inadmissible, irrelevant, or gratuitous content” and further to “a refusal by the lawyer to file the affidavit if it is of no relevance or probative value” (at [26]).

Step 4: Remove all material without probative value.

This includes, by way of non-exhaustive example: happy photographs of children (at [27]); testimonial-style character evidence; gratuitous commentary about the other party’s career, ambition or personality; submissions disguised as evidence (at [48]); and historical detail unconnected to any matter in issue (at [82]).

Step 5: Communicate the professional obligation to the client.

As O’Brien J observed at [100], “the requirement to adhere to clear professional obligations is a complete answer to many of the demands made by clients.” The practitioner should explain to the client that filing irrelevant evidence will not assist their case, will increase costs, and may delay the hearing. The professional obligation provides the basis for that conversation and, if necessary, for acting contrary to the client’s wishes.

Step 6: Apply the proportionality principle.

The cost and time involved in the evidence must be proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute (s 95(2)(e)). In a case where the core issues are narrow, a large number of witnesses is unlikely to be proportionate.

8.  Evidence and Arguments Available to Each Side

8.1  For the party seeking to adduce lay evidence

The strongest argument for admission arises where the opposing party would suffer a forensic disadvantage from exclusion. This occurred in Bailey and Petersen with the parties’ mothers (at [61], [77]). The lay witness must have direct, relevant knowledge of a contested matter that is not adequately addressed by other evidence. Frequency and recency of contact with the children will strengthen the case for admission. Evidence addressing a specific concern raised by the Single Expert Witness is more likely to be admitted (at [60]).

8.2  For the party opposing the evidence

The following arguments, each grounded in Bailey and Petersen, are available:

(a) The evidence is duplicative: the same matters are addressed in the party’s own affidavit and/or the expert evidence (at [45]).

(b) The evidence is opinion evidence from an unqualified lay witness and lacks the indicia required for expert opinion: Makita at [85]; Bailey and Petersen at [12].

(c) The witness has limited contact with the children, reducing the weight and relevance of any observations (at [45], [47]).

(d) The affidavit contains submissions rather than evidence (at [48]).

(e) There is no forensic disadvantage from exclusion because the matters addressed are not in dispute or are adequately addressed elsewhere (at [68]).

9.  Key Takeaways for Legal Practice

1.  The duty to exercise independent forensic judgment is mandatory. It is not diminished by client instructions, client-drafted affidavits, or the pressures of busy practice (at [22]–[23]).

2.  Identify the issues before drafting evidence. The matters in issue must be clearly identified at an early stage and before trial affidavits are prepared (at [10]).

3.  Admissibility does not equate to relevance or probative value. The relaxed evidentiary regime in parenting proceedings does not exempt evidence from scrutiny for relevance and probative value (at [12]).

4.  Lay opinion evidence is rarely of probative value where the Court has the benefit of expert evidence. The distinction in Makita between qualified and unqualified opinion evidence remains critical.

5.  Testimonials and character references do not assist. Evidence that a parent is “a good father” or “a caring mother” has no forensic utility where competent parenting is not in dispute.

6.  The professional obligation is a tool, not a burden. It provides the complete answer to demanding clients (at [100]). Adherence to it will “alleviate the pressure perceived by a practitioner more often than it will exacerbate it.”

7.  Consequences extend beyond the parties. Inflated trial estimates consume finite court resources and delay other families’ access to justice (at [97]–[98]).

8.  The principles are of general application. While the judgment arises in the family law jurisdiction, the duties described apply to all lawyers in all jurisdictions. The obligation to confine a hearing to the real issues and present the case as quickly and simply as is consistent with its robust advancement is universal.

10.  Conclusion

Bailey and Petersen is a judgment that every practitioner should read. Its significance extends well beyond family law. It is a clear, authoritative statement that lawyers are not obliged—and are in fact prohibited—from acting as conduits for their clients’ every wish in relation to evidence. The independent forensic judgment of the lawyer is not a discretionary add-on; it is a professional obligation.

The judgment serves as a reminder that the pressures of practice—demanding clients, tight deadlines, the temptation to file everything and let the Court sort it out—do not excuse a failure to discharge that obligation. As O’Brien J observed, with proper regard to the principles summarised in the judgment, the process of excluding 16 of 25 proposed witnesses “should have been entirely unnecessary” (at [94]). The affidavits eventually excluded should never have been filed.

For practitioners, the practical message is straightforward. Identify the issues early. Assess each piece of evidence against those issues. Remove what is irrelevant. Refuse to file what is gratuitous. Explain the professional obligation to the client. The obligation is not a constraint on effective advocacy; it is a component of it.

The Role of Expert Evidence in Guardianship and Administration Proceedings

Guardianship and administration applications in Western Australia often involve contested questions of mental capacity. In such cases, the State Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) must weigh lay evidence alongside professional assessments by medical and allied health practitioners. The recent decision in MM [2025] WASAT 103 provides a useful illustration of the principles the Tribunal applies when considering expert evidence.

Background: MM [2025] WASAT 103

The case concerned MM, a woman in her early 80s. Her daughter, YY, applied to be appointed administrator of MM’s financial affairs, alleging that MM lacked capacity and was the victim of coercion and elder abuse by her son, SS. Central to the dispute was whether MM had the ability to manage her financial affairs, particularly in light of a complex property transaction with SS.

YY arranged for MM to be assessed by a neuropsychologist, Dr J, who concluded that MM had a mild cognitive impairment and was unable to independently advocate for her interests in complex financial decisions. In contrast, MM’s general practitioner and a geriatrician (Dr F) found that MM had capacity to manage her affairs. Evidence was also provided by the Public Advocate and Public Trustee.

The Tribunal ultimately held that the presumption of capacity under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) had not been rebutted, and dismissed the application2025WASAT103.

The Presumption of Capacity

Section 4 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) enshrines the presumption that every person is capable of managing their own affairs until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. As observed in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, clear and cogent evidence is required to displace such a presumption where serious consequences follow2025WASAT103.

In MM, the Tribunal emphasised that it will only be persuaded to override the presumption where the evidence is strong and consistent. Lay testimony, observed behaviour, and professional assessments all form part of this evaluative exercise.

The Tribunal’s Approach to Expert Evidence

The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence (see State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), ss 32(2), 32(4)) and may inform itself in any manner it thinks fit. This allows the Tribunal to consider expert reports while also taking into account the circumstances in which they were obtained.

In MM, the Tribunal noted several concerns with Dr J’s report:

• MM did not understand the purpose of the assessment and was not given the opportunity to review key documents provided to Dr J by YY.

• Dr J relied heavily on information supplied by YY, without equivalent input from SS.

• The conclusions were inconsistent with the direct observations of the Tribunal, as well as the reports of MM’s GP, geriatrician, and the Public Trustee.

As a result, the Tribunal gave less weight to Dr J’s opinion, preferring the evidence of Dr F and others who concluded that MM retained capacity.

The Weight to Be Given to Expert Evidence

The decision underscores that while expert reports are often central to guardianship proceedings, the Tribunal will assess their independence, methodology, and consistency with other evidence before determining the weight to be attached to them.

As noted in XYZ (Guardianship) [2007] VCAT 1196, the Tribunal may consider evidence from a wide variety of sources, both lay and professional, when assessing capacity. In GC and PC [2014] WASAT 10 and LP [2020] WASAT 25, the Tribunal stressed that expert assessments are important but not determinative; they must be viewed in light of the whole factual matrix.

In MM, the Tribunal concluded that the difficulties MM experienced in advocating for herself were not caused by cognitive impairment but rather by family conflict and complex personal relationships.

The Right to Make Unwise Decisions

A further theme in MM was the Tribunal’s recognition that capacity does not equate to making only “good” decisions. As stated in T [2018] WASAT 128, people have the right to make bad or unwise decisions, provided they have capacity. In this case, even if some considered MM’s financial choices imprudent, the Tribunal found she was entitled to make them.

Lessons from MM [2025] WASAT 103

This case illustrates several important principles for guardianship and administration proceedings:

1. Expert evidence must be independent and fairly obtained. Reports arranged without transparency, or based on incomplete or biased information, may be given reduced weight.

2. The presumption of capacity is robust. It requires clear and persuasive evidence to be set aside.

3. Lay and professional evidence are both important. The Tribunal considers the whole of the evidence, including its own observations of the proposed represented person.

4. Capacity is not judged by the wisdom of decisions. Adults with capacity retain the right to make decisions others may consider unwise.

Conclusion

MM [2025] WASAT 103 provides timely guidance on how the Tribunal evaluates expert evidence in guardianship and administration cases. While expert reports remain a critical tool, their weight depends on independence, context, and consistency with other evidence. Above all, the case reaffirms the central principle that capacity is presumed, and only compelling evidence will justify interference with a person’s autonomy.

Consenting to Extensions of Time: A Legal Practitioner's Duty to the Court

The Context: A Lesson from HOOPER v COCKLES

In HOOPER v COCKLES PTY LTD [2025] WASCA 143, the Court of Appeal was required to determine an application that, in the words of Vaughan JA, "should never have been necessary." The appellants sought a modest one business day extension to file their appellant's case, from 12 September to 15 September 2025. The reason was straightforward: counsel's unrelated mediation had overrun its scheduled time, preventing finalisation of the appellant's case on the due date. Despite the minimal nature of the extension sought and the absence of any specific prejudice, the solicitor for the second and third respondents refused consent, necessitating a formal application to the court.

The Power to Extend Time

The court's power to extend time in the Court of Appeal derives from Order 3 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), which applies to the Court of Appeal through the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA). As established in Billabong Gold Pty Ltd v Vango Mining Ltd [2022] WASCA 35 at [46], this rule confers a broad remedial power on the court to relieve against injustice (Billabong Gold at [47], [65], [73]).

Order 3 rule 5(1) empowers the court to extend the period within which a party is required or authorised to do any act in proceedings. This power may be exercised by a single judge of appeal or a Court of Appeal registrar. The discretion is to be exercised in the interests of justice, weighing all relevant circumstances including the reason for the delay, any prejudice to other parties, and the impact on the conduct of the litigation.

The Professional Duty to Facilitate Justice

The decision in HOOPER v COCKLES underscores a fundamental principle that extends beyond mere procedural courtesy. Legal practitioners have a positive duty to assist the court in attaining the objects set out in Order 1 rule 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA). These objects include:

• Disposing efficiently of the business of the court (r 4B(1)(b))

• Maximising the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources (r 4B(1)(c))

• Ensuring that the applicable procedure and costs are proportionate (r 4B(1)(e) and (f))

This duty is not merely aspirational. As Vaughan JA emphasised, a solicitor's duty to the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty (Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 r 3.1). Barristers are subject to similar overriding duties (Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 r 4(a), (d), r 23).

When Consent Should Be Given

The principles emerging from HOOPER v COCKLES establish clear guidance for when legal practitioners should consent to extension requests:

Consent should ordinarily be given where:

• The extension sought is reasonable in duration

• The extension will not adversely affect any future hearing date

• The extension will not otherwise disrupt the conduct of the litigation

• No specific prejudice will be suffered by the opposing party

The absence of consent should be reserved for circumstances where:

• Specific, identifiable prejudice would result from the extension

• The extension would affect scheduled hearing dates

• There has been a pattern of repeated delays without adequate explanation

• The extension would materially disrupt case management directions

The Consequences of Unreasonable Refusal

The court in HOOPER v COCKLES made clear that unreasonable refusal to consent to minor extensions wastes judicial resources and unnecessarily increases costs. While the court ultimately made no order as to costs in that case (as none were sought), Vaughan JA explicitly warned that "a different position may prevail in the future if the present circumstances are replicated."

The judgment contemplated the possibility of requiring solicitors to show cause under Order 66 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) where consent is unreasonably withheld. This signals the court's willingness to scrutinise the conduct of legal practitioners who obstruct the efficient administration of justice through tactical or unreasonable refusals.

Practical Considerations

Legal practitioners should approach extension requests with the following considerations:

1. Act promptly: When an extension becomes necessary, seek consent at the earliest opportunity

2. Provide reasons: Explain the circumstances necessitating the extension clearly and honestly

3. Be proportionate: Ensure the extension sought is no longer than necessary

4. Document communications: Keep records of consent requests and responses

5. Consider reciprocity: Professional courtesy in granting reasonable extensions fosters efficient case management

The Broader Principle

The decision in HOOPER v COCKLES reflects a broader principle about the role of legal practitioners in the justice system. As Vaughan JA observed, agreeing to reasonable extensions not only fulfils a practitioner's duty to the court but also benefits their own client by avoiding unnecessary costs associated with formal applications.

The message is clear: legal practitioners must rise above tactical gamesmanship and recognise their role as officers of the court. The efficient administration of justice requires cooperation where it does not prejudice legitimate interests. As stated in HOOPER v COCKLES at [16], "a legal practitioner will not be in breach of any duty to his or her client in agreeing a reasonable extension of time which neither adversely affects a future hearing date nor otherwise disrupts the conduct of the litigation."

Conclusion

The principles established in HOOPER v COCKLES PTY LTD [2025] WASCA 143 serve as a reminder that the practice of law is not merely an adversarial contest but a professional endeavour aimed at the just and efficient resolution of disputes. Legal practitioners who understand and embrace this principle will find themselves better serving both their clients' interests and their paramount duty to the court.

Understanding the Contextual Truth Defence in Defamation Law

The Al Muderis Case: A Recent Application

The Federal Court's decision in Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 909 provides valuable insights into the operation of the contextual truth defence in defamation proceedings. Dr Munjed Al Muderis, an orthopaedic surgeon specialising in osseointegration procedures, brought defamation proceedings against Nine Network and associated media outlets concerning a Four Corners broadcast titled "The Agony" and related online articles published in 2023. The publications examined the experiences of certain patients who had undergone osseointegration surgery with Dr Al Muderis, with the surgeon alleging the materials conveyed 75 defamatory imputations about his surgical practice and patient care. The Court ultimately found that the respondents had established the contextual truth defence under section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), dismissing the application.

The Legislative Framework

Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) provides a complete defence to defamation where a defendant can establish two essential elements. First, the published matter must carry one or more imputations that are substantially true (known as "contextual imputations"). Second, any defamatory imputations complained of by the plaintiff that are not contextual imputations must not further harm the plaintiff's reputation because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

The defence underwent significant amendment on 1 July 2021, with the introduction of section 26(2) proving particularly important. As the Court noted in Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 909, this provision means it is no longer necessary that a defendant's contextual imputations be different in substance from a plaintiff's pleaded imputations. A defendant may now rely on any imputations carried by a publication - whether the same as, permissible variants of, carrying a common sting with, or entirely different in substance from the imputations of which the plaintiff complains - as contextual imputations.

The Defence Must Defeat All Defamatory Stings

A fundamental principle of the contextual truth defence is that it must defeat the entire defamatory matter of which the plaintiff complains. As established in Besser v Kermode [2011] NSWCA 174; (2011) 81 NSWLR 157 at [78], the defence "must defeat the whole defamatory matter (cause of action) of which the plaintiff complains, that is to say all of the plaintiff's stings." This means that the substantial truth of the contextual imputations must be sufficiently serious and comprehensive to render any remaining unproven imputations incapable of causing further reputational harm.

Assessing Further Harm: Facts Not Just Imputations

One of the most significant aspects of the contextual truth defence concerns how courts assess whether residual imputations cause "further harm" to reputation. The Full Court's decision in Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Greiss [2024] FCAFC 162 recently clarified this issue, confirming the approach established in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434; (2001) 53 NSWLR 541.

In Blake, Spigelman CJ observed that section 16(2)(c) of the predecessor Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) does not focus attention on a contextual imputation as such, but on the proposition that such an imputation is a "matter of substantial truth." The Court must focus on the facts, matters and circumstances said to establish the truth of the contextual imputation, rather than on the terms of the contextual imputation itself. This approach was confirmed to apply equally to the current section 26 in Greiss.

As Applegarth J noted in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Weatherup [2017] QCA 70; [2018] 1 Qd R 19 at [46], "The requirement to prove no further harm to the plaintiff's reputation focuses on the facts, matters and circumstances which establish the substantial truth of the contextual imputations. This reflects the language of the section."

Substantial Truth and the Sting of the Libel

When establishing contextual imputations as substantially true, defendants must prove every material part of an imputation is true, with the defence concerned with meeting the sting of the defamation, as confirmed in Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335; (2010) 278 ALR 232 at [138]. A "material part" is any detail which alters or aggravates the character of the imputations, as established in Rofe v Smith's Newspapers Ltd (1924) 25 SR (NSW) 4 at 22.

The classic statement of principle comes from Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47 at 78-79, who explained that the plea of justification "must not be considered in a meticulous sense" and that "all that was required to affirm that plea was that the jury should be satisfied that the sting of the libel or, if there were more than one, the stings of the libel should be made out."

The Character as Criminal Example

The contextual truth defence's operation can be illustrated through cases involving imputations about criminal character. In State of New South Wales v Wraydeh [2019] NSWCA 192, discussed in Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 909, the State pleaded contextual truth relying on an imputation that "the plaintiff is a criminal," seeking to prove this through evidence of prior criminal convictions unrelated to the events giving rise to the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal's analysis highlighted that whether a person should be characterised in the present tense as "a criminal" is not answered determinatively by establishing past criminal offences. As McCallum JA observed, this "ignores the possibility of change and rehabilitation" and "not every prior conviction would be regarded as necessarily warranting that label." Simpson AJA similarly questioned whether "a person convicted of shoplifting at age 18 [should] forever be branded 'a criminal'."

Strategic Considerations for Defendants

The contextual truth defence offers defendants significant strategic advantages, particularly following the 2021 amendments. Defendants can now rely on the plaintiff's own pleaded imputations as contextual imputations if they can prove them substantially true. This allows defendants to effectively use the plaintiff's case against them, proving some of the plaintiff's imputations to neutralise the sting of those they cannot prove.

The defence is particularly powerful where publications convey imputations involving general charges about a person's character or conduct. Where such general charges are made, defendants are entitled to give particulars demonstrating their truth by reference to a wide variety of matters not confined to facts in the article, as established in Maisel v Financial Times Limited (1915) 112 LT 953.

Practical Application

The application of the contextual truth defence in Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 909 provides instructive guidance on how the defence operates in practice. The respondents' strategic approach, as articulated at [224], was to rely on all imputations to which they had pleaded a justification defence as contextual imputations, including those the Court ultimately found were not conveyed by the publications.

The Imputations at Issue

The Court found at [8] that while certain imputations were not conveyed (including the "Disputed Imputations" at [10.1]-[10.6], [13.2], [13.6], [13.20], [16.4], [16.8], [16.13], [16.15], [16.20], [16.23], [16.27], [16.29] and [16.30]), the remaining imputations that were conveyed provided sufficient basis for the contextual truth defence. Significantly, at [219], the Court accepted that many of the applicant's pleaded imputations involved "general charges" capable of being justified by reference to facts not stated in the publications.

These general charges included serious professional allegations such as:

• Imputation [10.1]: "negligently operated on his patients"

• Imputation [10.2]: "deliberately misled his patients about his surgical abilities"

• Imputation [13.4]: "prioritises money over his patients' care"

• Imputation [13.14]: "runs his surgical practice as a numbers game"

• Imputation [13.18]: "exploited vulnerable patients"

• Imputation [16.1]: "is a callous surgeon who routinely left patients to rot"

• Imputation [16.2]: "routinely negligently failed to provide after surgery care"

• Imputation [16.25]: "negligent in his selection of patients"

• Imputation [16.26]: "habitually failed to explain risks and complications"

The Respondents' Strategic Approach

As the Court noted at [224], the respondents articulated their position clearly: they contended that ordinary reasonable readers and viewers would understand references to "surgery" and like terms as extending to all aspects of Dr Al Muderis's surgical practice, not merely performance "in the operating theatre." This broader interpretation encompassed "pre-operative considerations and consultations and post-operative care, including patient selection, disclosure of risks, misleading patients, making false promises, abandoning patients and negligent post-surgery care."

The respondents submitted at [224] that so long as these broader imputations were conveyed, they were "permitted to rely on them as contextual imputations for the purposes of s 26." This strategic framing allowed them to marshal evidence about the full spectrum of Dr Al Muderis's professional conduct, not just his technical surgical skills.

Establishing Substantial Truth Through Multiple Incidents

In applying the principle from Maisel v Financial Times Limited (1915) 112 LT 953, referenced at [219], the Court accepted that the respondents could justify general charges by reference to "a wide variety of matters which are not confined to the facts in the article." This meant the respondents could present evidence of multiple patient experiences beyond those specifically mentioned in the Four Corners broadcast and articles.

The Court's approach at [226] followed the established principle from John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Blake [2001] NSWCA 434; (2001) 53 NSWLR 541 at [61] and Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 41) [2023] FCA 555 at [2602], weighing the particulars and evidence relied upon in support of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

The "Swamping" Effect

The respondents' submission at [224] exemplified the strategic power of the contextual truth defence: they argued that the "Disputed Imputations in this broader sense, together with the other imputations which are the subject of the contextual truth defence... are substantially true and that, taken together, the substantial truth of the contextual imputations swamps the defamatory effect of any residual imputations which the Court may find have not been proven to be true."

The Court ultimately accepted this argument, finding at [8(3)] that "the respondents have established the defence of contextual truth under s 26 of the Defamation Act in relation to the Publications in which imputations are conveyed." This finding meant that even though not all 75 pleaded imputations were proven or even conveyed, the substantial truth of the contextual imputations that were established was sufficient to defeat the entire claim.

Key Takeaway for Practitioners

The case demonstrates that defendants need not prove every imputation complained of by a plaintiff. Where defendants can establish the substantial truth of sufficiently serious contextual imputations about professional misconduct - particularly those involving systematic patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents - these may neutralise the sting of any unproven imputations. The defence is particularly powerful where, as at [219], the plaintiff has pleaded imputations as general charges, opening the door for defendants to lead wide-ranging evidence of conduct beyond that specifically referenced in the publication.

Conclusion

The contextual truth defence represents a powerful tool in defamation proceedings, allowing defendants to defeat claims by establishing that the substantial truth of certain imputations renders any remaining defamatory material incapable of causing further reputational harm. The recent authorities, particularly Al Muderis v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 909 and Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Greiss [2024] FCAFC 162, confirm that courts will focus on the underlying facts establishing the truth of contextual imputations rather than merely comparing imputations in the abstract. For practitioners, understanding this defence's operation is essential for both prosecuting and defending defamation claims in Western Australia and throughout the uniform defamation law jurisdictions.

Understanding Excluded Corporations in Australian Defamation Law

Introduction: The Deep Cycle Systems Case

A Queensland District Court decision has provided valuable guidance on what constitutes an "excluded corporation" under Australian defamation law. In Deep Cycle Systems Pty Ltd v Fischer [2025] QDC 25, a lithium battery manufacturer sued for defamation over publications made between August and December 2023. The defendant successfully applied for a separate determination of whether the plaintiff was an excluded corporation under section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to establish it was an excluded corporation, meaning it could not maintain its defamation action.

The Statutory Framework

Under section 9(1) of the Defamation Act 2005, a corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the publication of defamatory matter unless it was an "excluded corporation" at the time of publication. This provision exists across all Australian jurisdictions as part of the uniform defamation legislation.

To qualify as an excluded corporation under section 9(2), a corporation must satisfy two requirements:

1. It employs fewer than 10 persons; and

2. It is not an associated entity of another corporation.

Both elements must be established on the balance of probabilities at the time of the relevant publications.

The Employee Test: A Broader Definition

The definition of "employee" in section 9(6) extends beyond traditional common law employment concepts. As noted in Aaren Pty Ltd trading as Price Beat Travel v Arya [2020] NSWDC 657, following observations in Born Brands Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (2014) 88 NSWLR 421, the relationship between the corporation and its employees need not be direct.

In Deep Cycle Systems, the court considered various categories of workers:

• Direct employees under contract

• Freelance engineers

• Family members working voluntarily

• Dealers and distributors

• Potential overseas workers

The court found that dealers who could be terminated for failing to meet "minimum dealer requirements" fell within the broad definition of employees. However, mere volunteers, such as family members working without payment, were not considered employees.

The Associated Entity Test

The second limb requires corporations to prove they are not an "associated entity" of another corporation. This term takes its meaning from section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Under section 50AAA(7), the test is satisfied where:

• A third entity controls both the principal and the associate; and

• The operations, resources or affairs of the principal and the associate are both material to the third entity.

The Materiality and Nexus Requirement

Following Fair Work Ombudsman v Priority Matters Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 1474, there must be a nexus between the associated entities in their respective operations, resources or affairs that are jointly material to the third entity. It is not sufficient that each entity is separately material to the controlling entity.

"Material" is understood to mean "of substantial import or much consequence" or "important or having an important effect." The determination of materiality depends on issues of fact and degree.

Key Indicators of Association

In Deep Cycle Systems, the court found the corporations were associated entities based on several factors:

1. Shared financial resources: Use of a single credit card for both companies' expenses with only annual reconciliation

2. Inter-company loans: Significant loans between the entities and to the controlling director

3. Shared physical assets: Vehicles and equipment used by both companies

4. Cross-promotional activities: Use of one company's marketing channels to advertise the other's products

5. Financial interdependency: Movement of money between entities suggesting joint income generation

The court emphasized that while separate business operations and accounting systems are relevant, they do not necessarily prevent a finding of association where other factors demonstrate material interdependency.

Practical Implications

For corporations contemplating defamation proceedings, establishing excluded corporation status requires careful attention to:

1. Accurate employee counting: Include all workers falling within the expanded definition, including contractors, dealers, and others under the corporation's direction or control

2. Documentary evidence: Maintain clear records of employment arrangements and corporate structures

3. Financial separation: Ensure genuine independence between related entities, particularly in financial dealings

4. Credibility: The court will carefully scrutinize evidence, particularly where witnesses have made admittedly false statements about business arrangements

Conclusion

The Deep Cycle Systems decision reinforces that the excluded corporation provisions are interpreted strictly. Corporations must satisfy both limbs of the test with credible evidence. The broad definition of "employee" and the practical approach to determining "associated entity" status mean that many corporations that might consider themselves small or independent may still be unable to sue for defamation.

Legal practitioners should carefully assess their corporate clients' structures and operations before commencing defamation proceedings, as failure to establish excluded corporation status will result in the proceedings being dismissed, potentially with adverse costs consequences.

Offers to Make Amends in Defamation Law: Key Considerations for Publishers

Introduction

The Queensland Supreme Court decision in McVicker v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 110 provides valuable guidance on the operation of offers to make amends under defamation legislation. In this case, Mr McVicker sued Nine Digital over three articles published on the 9Finance and A Current Affair websites concerning the collapse of online travel agency Bestjet. Nine Digital successfully defended the claim by establishing it had carried out the terms of an accepted offer to make amends, thereby engaging the statutory bar under section 17(1) of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). The dispute centered on whether Nine Digital had properly published the agreed correction on its websites, with the Court ultimately finding in the publisher's favor.

The Statutory Framework

Under Division 1 of Part 3 of the Defamation Act 2005, publishers have an opportunity to resolve defamation claims through the offer to make amends procedure. Section 14 provides that a publisher may make an offer to make amends in response to a concerns notice, while section 15 sets out the requirements for such offers.

Critically, section 17(1) provides that if a publisher carries out the terms of an accepted offer to make amends (including payment of any compensation), the aggrieved person cannot assert, continue or enforce an action for defamation in relation to the matter in question. This creates a complete defense to the defamation claim, even if the offer was limited to particular defamatory imputations.

Key Elements of an Effective Offer

An offer to make amends typically includes:

1. Removal of the offending material - The publisher agrees to remove the allegedly defamatory content from its platforms

2. Publication of a correction or apology - A written correction must be published in terms agreed between the parties

3. Payment of legal costs - The publisher must pay the aggrieved person's reasonably incurred legal costs

4. Notification to third parties - If the material was given to others, the publisher must inform them it may be defamatory

Construction of Agreements Formed by Acceptance

When disputes arise about whether a publisher has carried out the terms of an accepted offer, courts apply ordinary principles of contractual construction. As confirmed in McVicker v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 110, agreements formed by acceptance of offers to make amends are construed objectively by reference to text, context and purpose, following the approach in Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Vass (2018) 98 NSWLR 672; [2018] NSWCA 259 established that while ordinary contractual principles apply to construction, the formation of such agreements is governed by the statutory regime rather than general contract law.

Publication Requirements: "Websites" vs "Homepages"

A crucial issue in McVicker v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 110 was the interpretation of an agreement to publish a correction "on the 9Finance and A Current Affair websites." The plaintiff argued this required publication on the homepages or with equal prominence to the original articles.

The Court rejected this argument, finding:

• The parties had a clear understanding of the distinction between websites and homepages, as evidenced by their correspondence

• The agreed correction was published at unique URLs on both websites, with links appearing on the homepages for at least 24 hours

• This mirrored how the original articles were published

• There was no requirement for "equal prominence" beyond what was expressly agreed

Avoiding the Pitfalls: Lessons from Hafertepen

The Federal Court decision in Hafertepen v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1456 provides a cautionary tale. In that case, the agreed clarification was published in an obscure location on the "terms of use" page at the bottom of the website. The Court found this did not satisfy the publisher's obligations.

Publishers should ensure corrections are:

• Published in accessible locations on their websites

• Available for the agreed duration

• Not hidden in obscure or difficult-to-find pages

• Accompanied by appropriate links where agreed

The Importance of Clear Drafting

The McVicker case demonstrates the critical importance of precise language when negotiating offers to make amends. Publishers and complainants should:

• Clearly specify where corrections will be published (homepage, website, or both)

• Define the duration of publication

• Agree on the exact wording of corrections

• Consider whether links or tiles will be used and for how long

• Document all agreed terms in writing

Practical Considerations

When making or responding to offers to make amends, parties should:

1. Act promptly - Strict time limits apply under section 14

2. Be specific - Vague terms lead to disputes

3. Consider prominence - While "equal prominence" may not be implied, parties can expressly agree to specific prominence requirements

4. Document compliance - Publishers should maintain evidence of publication, including screenshots and viewership data

5. Communicate clearly - Distinguish between websites, homepages, and other digital platforms

The Objective Framework

As emphasized in Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337; [1982] HCA 24, courts look to the objective framework of facts within which agreements come into existence. In the digital context, this includes understanding how content is typically published and accessed on websites, the usual duration of homepage prominence, and the technical distinctions between different parts of websites.

Conclusion

The offer to make amends procedure provides a valuable mechanism for resolving defamation disputes without litigation. However, as McVicker v Nine Digital Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 110 demonstrates, the success of this mechanism depends on clear communication, precise drafting, and proper implementation of agreed terms. Publishers who carefully document their compliance with accepted offers can rely on the strong statutory defense provided by section 17(1). Conversely, complainants should ensure their expectations are clearly expressed and agreed in writing before accepting offers. With proper attention to detail, the offer to make amends procedure can achieve its purpose of facilitating early resolution of defamation claims.

Malice in Defamation: When Improper Purpose Defeats Privilege

The Harvey v Henderson Case: A Recent Example

The New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Harvey v Henderson [2025] NSWSC 601 provides valuable insights into the role of malice in defamation proceedings. The case involved a wildlife carer and charity founder who sued two former committee members over emails and social media posts alleging fraud and misuse of charitable funds. The defendants had published various communications suggesting the plaintiff was running the Wild2Free charity as a "private fundraiser" for herself and had engaged in "fraudulent conduct." While some publications were protected by qualified privilege due to the parties' roles as committee members, the case ultimately turned on whether malice could be established to defeat these defences.

Understanding Malice in Defamation Law

Malice in defamation law is not simply ill-will or spite, though these may form part of it. As the court in Harvey v Henderson noted, drawing from established authority, malice consists of one of three things: personal spite, an intention to injure the plaintiff without just cause, or knowledge of the falsity of what is said. The formulation derives from well-established principles, as cited in Australand Holdings Ltd v Transparency and Accountability Council Incorporated [2008] NSWSC 669, which referenced the authoritative text Clerk & Lindsell on Torts.

However, malice is not limited to these three categories. Any improper motive may constitute malice sufficient to defeat a defence of qualified privilege. This was affirmed in Harvey v Henderson, where the court acknowledged that malice could extend beyond the traditional categories to encompass any purpose not covered by the privilege being claimed.

The Relationship Between Malice and Qualified Privilege

Qualified privilege provides a crucial defence in defamation proceedings, protecting communications made in certain circumstances where freedom of expression serves the public interest. As the High Court explained in Cush v Dillon; Boland v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298, qualified privilege is based on public policy that recognises freedom of communication may sometimes be more important than protecting individual reputation.

However, this protection is not absolute. The privilege is qualified by the condition that the occasion must not be used for some purpose or motive foreign to the duty or interest that protects the making of the statement. As stated in Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1, express malice defeats the privilege when the defendant uses the privileged occasion for a reason not referable to the duty or interest pursued.

In Harvey v Henderson, the court emphasised that even where qualified privilege might otherwise apply - such as communications between board members about potential misconduct - the defence fails if the dominant purpose for the publication was improper. The mere existence of a legitimate occasion for communication does not provide carte blanche to defame.

The Burden and Standard of Proof

Crucially, the burden of proving malice rests with the plaintiff. Once a defendant establishes that qualified privilege applies, the plaintiff must prove malice to defeat the defence. This allocation of burden reflects the law's recognition that those communicating on privileged occasions should not be too readily stripped of protection.

The standard of proof remains the civil standard - balance of probabilities. However, as noted in Harvey v Henderson, where allegations of fraud or dishonesty are involved, the court must be conscious of the gravity of such allegations, following the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 and Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170.

It's important to note that under section 36 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), the court must disregard the defendant's malice or state of mind when awarding damages, except to the extent that it affects the actual harm sustained by the plaintiff. This statutory provision ensures damages remain compensatory rather than punitive, even where malice is established.

What Does and Doesn't Constitute Malice

The Harvey v Henderson decision provides helpful guidance on what will and won't establish malice:

What may constitute malice:

• Knowledge that the published material is false

• Publishing for a purpose unrelated to the privileged occasion

• Personal spite or desire to injure without justification

• Using defamation as leverage for unrelated gains

• Conduct during litigation, including prolonged hostile cross-examination or pursuing a defence bound to fail (as noted in Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v John Tingle [2001] NSWCA 194)

What doesn't necessarily constitute malice:

• Conducting a campaign of publications (unless for an improper purpose)

• Strong belief in the truth of allegations, even if ultimately unproven

• Multiple complaints to authorities, if genuinely held

• Failure to apologise (though this may affect damages)

• Publishing material that turns out to be false, without knowledge of falsity

Importantly, Harvey v Henderson clarified that neither lack of belief in the truth of a statement nor its objective falsity is sufficient alone to establish malice and destroy qualified privilege. This protects those who communicate in good faith on privileged occasions, even when mistaken.

Mixed Purposes and Dominant Motive

A significant aspect of the malice analysis involves situations where a defendant may have multiple reasons for publishing defamatory material. As Harvey v Henderson demonstrates, conduct may have several purposes. The court must identify the "substantial or operative purpose" for the publication. Only when this dominant purpose is improper will malice be established.

In that case, while the defendants may have been motivated by grievances about fund distribution and equipment allocation, the court was not satisfied that any improper purpose was the operating factor in their publications to fellow board members about governance concerns.

The Distinction Between Malice and Aggravated Damages

Harvey v Henderson also illustrates the important distinction between malice for defeating qualified privilege and malice for aggravated damages. While the court found insufficient evidence of malice to defeat qualified privilege for certain publications, it separately considered whether malice existed for the purpose of awarding aggravated damages.

The Statutory Framework: Section 36 of the Defamation Act

A critical provision governing the role of malice in damages is section 36 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), which states:

"In awarding damages for defamation, the court is to disregard the malice or other state of mind of the defendant at the time of the publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate or at any other time except to the extent that the malice or other state of mind affects the harm sustained by the plaintiff."

This provision fundamentally shapes how courts approach malice in the damages context. As Harvey v Henderson demonstrates, the court must ensure there is a rational relationship between the harm sustained and damages awarded, regardless of the defendant's malice or state of mind. Malice can only influence damages to the extent it actually increases the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Practical Effect of Section 36

The statutory limitation means that:

1. Malice is not punitive: Courts cannot increase damages simply to punish a malicious defendant

2. Focus on actual harm: The relevant inquiry is whether the defendant's malice caused additional harm to the plaintiff

3. Examples of increased harm: Malice might increase harm where:

   • The defendant's known spite makes the publication more hurtful to the plaintiff

   • Malicious intent becomes known to others, compounding reputational damage

   • The manner of publication, driven by malice, increases the spread or impact

When malicious intent becomes known to others: This occurs where the defendant's improper motive becomes apparent to those who read or hear about the defamatory publication. For instance, if readers become aware that the defendant published the material out of spite or to gain leverage in an unrelated dispute, this knowledge may cause them to discuss the allegations more widely or view the plaintiff with additional suspicion. The "grapevine effect" can be amplified when the audience knows the publication was maliciously motivated, as it may lend a perverse credibility to the allegations ("there must be something to it if they're so determined to destroy her"). In Harvey v Henderson, evidence of the defendants' campaign and circulation of court documents could potentially fall into this category, though the court ultimately found insufficient evidence of malice.

When manner of publication increases spread or impact: Malice may drive a defendant to publish in a particularly damaging way - choosing the widest possible audience, the most damaging forum, or timing publication for maximum harm. For example, a defendant acting maliciously might post on multiple social media platforms rather than sending a private email, might choose inflammatory language designed to go viral, or might time publication to coincide with the plaintiff's important business dealings. In Harvey v Henderson, the defendants' use of public Facebook pages rather than private communications to committee members could be seen as an example, though the court noted the posts were removed quickly, limiting their impact.

Aggravated damages remain compensatory in nature, not punitive. As the High Court stated in Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44, such damages compensate for additional harm caused by the defendant's conduct that is "improper, unjustifiable or lacking in bona fides." The absence of an apology, while not establishing malice to defeat privilege, may be relevant to the plaintiff's hurt feelings and thus ordinary compensatory damages.

Practical Implications

For legal practitioners, Harvey v Henderson reinforces several key principles:

1. Document the legitimate purpose: When advising clients who need to communicate potentially defamatory material on a privileged occasion, ensure they can articulate and document the legitimate purpose for the communication.

2. Stay within bounds: Communications should be limited to what is relevant and necessary for the privileged purpose. In Harvey v Henderson, social media posts attacking a third party in response to criticism were held to fall outside the privilege of reply to attack.

3. Consider the audience: Qualified privilege based on duty or interest requires reciprocity. Publishing to the world at large on social media will rarely attract privilege, as the court noted regarding the ABC South East NSW Facebook page posts.

4. Belief in truth matters: Honest belief in the truth of defamatory statements, while not a complete defence, makes proving malice significantly more difficult for a plaintiff.

5. Timing and context: The court will examine the entire context, including what precipitated the publications and their timing relative to other events or disputes.

Conclusion

The role of malice in defamation law represents a careful balance between protecting reputation and preserving freedom of communication on matters of legitimate interest. Harvey v Henderson [2025] NSWSC 601 demonstrates that while qualified privilege provides important protection for necessary communications, it cannot be used as a shield for publications motivated by improper purposes.

Understanding when malice will be found requires careful analysis of the publisher's dominant motive, the relationship between the parties, and the connection between what was published and any legitimate interest or duty. For those operating in positions of responsibility - whether as company directors, committee members, or in other fiduciary roles - the case underscores both the protection available for proper governance communications and the limits of that protection when improper purposes intrude.

The Sufficient Connection Test in Qualified Privilege: When Defamatory Statements Are Germane to the Protected Occasion

Introduction: The Slater v Ecosol Case

The decision in Slater v Ecosol Pty Ltd [2025] SASCA 78 provides guidance on when defamatory statements are sufficiently connected to an occasion of qualified privilege.

The case involved a dispute over the proposed sale of a stormwater treatment manufacturing business. Mr Slater, a shareholder, opposed the sale to management (through Urban Asset Solutions Pty Ltd) and communicated his concerns to fellow shareholders. In response, the company's chairman, Mr Smith, sent letters to shareholders that included statements Mr Slater claimed were defamatory – including imputations that he had lied to shareholders and was improperly motivated. While the trial judge found the statements were defamatory, the defence of qualified privilege succeeded because the statements were sufficiently connected to the privileged occasion of communicating with shareholders about the proposed transaction.

The Broad Approach to Connection

The law takes a deliberately broad view of what constitutes a sufficient connection to a privileged occasion. As the Court in Slater v Ecosol emphasised, statements need not be central to the topic or contribute positively to the discussion to attract protection. Drawing on the High Court's guidance in Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298, the Court confirmed that "no narrow view should be taken of the pursuit of a duty or interest in what was said."

This broad approach reflects the underlying rationale of qualified privilege – that in certain circumstances, a plaintiff's right to protect their reputation must yield to the public interest in free communication on matters of legitimate concern (Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; Stone v Moore (2016) 125 SASR 81).

Key Principles from the Authorities

Relevance and Germaneness

The fundamental test is whether the defamatory matter is "relevant" or "germane" to the privileged occasion. In Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309, various formulations were used:

• Matter that is "not relevant and pertinent" to the occasion

• Something "beyond what was germane and reasonably appropriate to the occasion"

• Matter "quite unconnected with and irrelevant to the main statement"

• Matter "not in any reasonable sense germane" to what was being conveyed

As Cush v Dillon clarified, these different formulations should not be read as imposing varying levels of stringency – the key point is that the law does not require a narrow view of relevance.

Errors and Inaccuracies Don't Break the Connection

Importantly, the fact that a statement is wrong, defamatory, or even excessive does not automatically mean it lacks sufficient connection. In Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366, an error in identifying the party subject to court findings did not sever the connection to the privileged occasion. Similarly, in Cush v Dillon, referring to a rumour as fact (when discussing governance concerns) maintained the requisite connection.

The Distinction Between Excessive and Extraneous

There is a crucial distinction between statements that are excessive yet within the privileged occasion, and statements that exceed the occasion by being irrelevant (Marshall v Megna [2013] NSWCA 30). As Stone v Moore explained, the focus is on the topic in respect of which the relevant duty or interest exists, not the precise words spoken. Even strident, incorrect or extravagant language can be protected if it relates to the privileged topic.

Self-Defence and Rebuttal

The authorities recognise that "great latitude" must be allowed to persons defending themselves against attacks (Penton v Calwell (1945) 70 CLR 219; Bass v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (2003) 60 NSWLR 251). This principle was relevant in Slater v Ecosol, where the company's responses to Mr Slater's criticisms were held to be sufficiently connected to the privileged occasion.

Practical Examples: When Connection May Be Lost

Example 1: The Board Meeting Discussion

At a company board meeting convened to discuss the annual budget, a director raises concerns about proposed cost-cutting measures. During the discussion, she states: "The CFO's budget projections are as reliable as his taste in music – I saw him at that terrible boy band concert last week with someone who definitely wasn't his wife."

While criticising the CFO's budget projections would be germane to the occasion, the gratuitous comments about his musical preferences and personal life would likely not be sufficiently connected. These statements are "quite unconnected with and irrelevant" (Adam v Ward) to the budgetary discussion that creates the privileged occasion.

Example 2: The Workplace Safety Report

A workplace safety officer sends a report to management about safety breaches in the warehouse. The report includes: "John Smith has repeatedly operated the forklift at dangerous speeds in the loading bay. This doesn't surprise me given that he was convicted of drink driving last year and his ex-wife told me he's a compulsive gambler who owes money all over town. Someone with such poor judgment in their personal life obviously can't be trusted with workplace safety."

While the observations about John Smith's forklift operation would be germane to the privileged occasion, the gratuitous references to his criminal history and alleged gambling problems bear no reasonable connection to workplace safety concerns. Following Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102, such comments would be "so foreign to the occasion that they must be held to be extraneous or irrelevant."

The Position of Directors and Fiduciaries

The Slater v Ecosol decision also clarifies that a person's position or duties (such as being a director or fiduciary) does not narrow the scope of privileged occasion or impose additional constraints on what can be said. The Court rejected arguments that directors must confine themselves to statements that "contribute to" or "assist" debate. As long as the statements relate to the privileged topic in the broad sense recognised by the authorities, they remain protected even if they are attacks on character or motivation.

Practical Checklist: Assessing Whether Statements Are Germane

When advising on whether defamatory statements are sufficiently connected to a privileged occasion, practitioners should work through the following comprehensive checklist:

1. Identify the Privileged Occasion

• What is the precise nature of the duty or interest that creates the privilege?

  • Is it a legal duty, moral duty, or social duty?

  • Is it a public interest or private interest?

  • Who are the relevant parties to the privileged communication?

• What is the scope of the subject matter covered by the privilege?

  • Define the topic broadly rather than narrowly

  • Consider all aspects reasonably connected to the main subject

  • Remember that tangential matters may still be included

2. Analyse the Context of the Communication

• What prompted the communication?

  • Was it in response to an attack or criticism? (Remember the "great latitude" principle)

  • Was it initiated by the publisher or reactive?

  • What was the timeline of communications?

• What was the publisher's role or position?

  • While position doesn't narrow the privilege, it provides context

  • Consider whether the publisher had authority to speak on the matter

  • Note any special knowledge or expertise relevant to the topic

3. Examine the Defamatory Statements

• How do the statements relate to the privileged topic?

  • Do they directly address the subject matter?

  • Are they examples or illustrations of points about the topic?

  • Do they provide context or background to the main issue?

• If the statements attack character or motivation:

  • Is the person's character relevant to their role in the privileged matter?

  • Do the attacks relate to their conduct concerning the privileged topic?

  • Are they responding to attacks made by that person?

4. Apply the Legal Tests

• The "Adam v Ward" formulations - are the statements:

  • "Relevant and pertinent" to the discharge of duty or protection of interest?

  • Within what is "germane and reasonably appropriate to the occasion"?

  • Not "quite unconnected with and irrelevant to the main statement"?

  • Not matter that is "not in any reasonable sense germane"?

• The "Guise v Kouvelis" test:

  • Are the words "so foreign to the occasion that they must be held to be extraneous or irrelevant"?

5. Consider Common Scenarios

• If the statements contain errors or are false:

  • Remember this doesn't automatically break the connection (Bashford)

  • Focus on subject matter, not accuracy

• If the statements are excessive or extravagant:

  • Distinguish between excessive language about the relevant topic (likely protected)

  • Versus statements about extraneous matters (not protected)

• If the statements seem unhelpful or unconstructive:

  • The law doesn't require statements to advance debate positively

  • Even counterproductive statements can be germane

6. Red Flags - Factors Suggesting Lack of Connection

• Purely personal attacks unrelated to the privileged matter

  • References to unrelated personal relationships

  • Attacks on characteristics irrelevant to the topic

  • Historical grievances with no bearing on current matter

• Subject matter from entirely different spheres

  • Professional criticism veering into unrelated personal life

  • Business discussions including irrelevant social commentary

  • Official communications containing private vendettas

• Timing disconnects

  • References to events far removed in time with no logical connection

  • Dragging in historical matters not relevant to current issue

7. Special Considerations

• For company/shareholder communications:

  • Broad scope for discussing company affairs, transactions, and governance

  • Criticism of directors/management conduct generally germane

  • Shareholder activism and opposition typically within scope

• For employment references:

  • Focus on work performance and conduct

  • Personal life only relevant if impacts work capacity

• For public interest communications:

  • Wider scope for discussion of public figures

  • Context of public debate allows broader range of comment

8. Document Your Analysis

• Create a clear record showing:

  • The identified privileged occasion and its scope

  • How each defamatory statement relates to that occasion

  • Any statements that may fall outside protection

  • The authorities supporting your conclusions

9. Borderline Cases

• When connection is arguable:

  • Remember the broad approach mandated by Cush v Dillon

  • Consider whether a reasonable person would see some relationship to the topic

  • If genuinely borderline, the broad approach suggests inclusion

• Mixed communications:

  • Separate germane from non-germane portions

  • Privilege protects the connected statements even if others are not protected

10. Final Review Questions

• Have I taken too narrow a view of the privileged occasion?

• Have I focused on the topic rather than the specific words used?

• Would excluding these statements unduly restrict free communication on the privileged matter?

• Is there any reasonable argument connecting the statements to the privileged topic?

This checklist should be applied flexibly, remembering that the law favours protection of free communication on matters of legitimate interest. When in doubt, the authorities suggest taking a broad rather than narrow approach to connection.

Conclusion

The sufficient connection test in qualified privilege requires courts to take a broad, practical approach. Defamatory statements will be protected if they are relevant and germane to the privileged occasion, even if they are wrong, excessive, or unhelpful to constructive debate. Only statements that are truly extraneous or irrelevant to the privileged topic will fall outside protection. For practitioners, this means carefully identifying the scope of the privileged occasion and assessing whether impugned statements relate to that topic, however tangentially. The law's broad approach reflects the importance placed on protecting free communication on matters of legitimate interest, even when that communication is robust, mistaken, or defamatory.