To: Mr Samuel Wilson
From: Vivien Mc Anna
Date: 23rd May 2014
Regarding: Advice re separation issues and damage to reputation
From the Magill case it can be seen that the courts have no problem with dealing with the tort of deceit in a family setting. [1: Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 at 186, 211, 612;  HCA 51.]
For you to have an action under the tort it must be shown that: a false representation must be made by the Ms Anderson; she knew it to be false, or was reckless as to whether it was true or not; and she intended that you should act in reliance on it; and finally that you have relied on it and have suffered a loss as a direct result. Given that there has only previously been two case in Australia looking at the question of paternity fraud, there is not a lot of Common Law to direct the courts in their judgement.[2:
Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 at 574 (Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ); HCA 51.]
On the evidence provided you seem to have a stronger claim than previous cases and I believe it would be in your interest to take the matter further with XYZ Lawyers who specialize in Family Law.
Reparation for loss of income under the tort of Injurious Falsehood
The Tort requires proof of disparaging imputations on the part of Ms Anderson and Shane Devon, that these were published to a 3rd party, that there was malice involved in the disparaging remarks and that you have suffered economic damage as a result .
The Magill v Magill case which is very similar to the present case, forced Australian courts to decide for the first time whether a man can...