CITATION: ALAN JONES v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ANOR [2002] NSWSC 1211 FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20340 OF 1999 HEARING DATE(S): 13 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 18 December 2002 PARTIES :
ALAN JONES
(Plaintiff)v
JOHN FAIRFAX (PUBLICATIONS) PTY LTD
DAVID LESER
(First Defendant)
(Second Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
COUNSEL : T Blackburn
S Rares SC
(Plaintiff)
(Defendants)SOLICITORS: Blake Dawson Waldron
(Plaintiff)Freehills
(Defendants)CATCHWORDS: Contextual imputations - threshold issue of capacity of matter complained of to carry - mitigation of damages - post publication events LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 CASES CITED: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v McBride [2001] NSCA 322
Bishop v New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 1042
Chappell v Mirror Newspapers (1984) Aust Tort Rep 80-691
Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods (1992) 26 NSWLR 738
Hansen v Border Morning Mail, Hunt J, unreported, 24 October 1986
Harb v Illawarra Newspapers Pty Ltd, Levine J, unreported, 10 November 1995
Hepburn v TCN Channel Nine [1984] 1 NSWLR 386
Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor v Blake (2001) 53 NSWLR 541
MacGrath v Black (1925) 95 LJ KB 951
Maisel v Financial Times (1925) 112 LT 953
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd, Levine J, 4 May 1998 BC9801908
McBride v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2000] NSWSC 747
Middendorp Electric Co Pty Ltd v Sonneveld [2001] VSC 312
NRMA Insurance Ltd v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1989) A Def R 50-055
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Antoniadis (1998) 4 NSWLR 682
Waterhouse & Anor v Hickie (1995) Aust Tort Rep 81-347
Whelan & Anor v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Ors [2002] NSWSC 1028DECISION: See paragraph 40
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
Wednesday 18 December 2002
20340 OF 1999
ALAN JONES
(Plaintiff)
v
DAVID LESERJOHN FAIRFAX (PUBLICATIONS) PTY LTD
(First Defendant)
(Second Defendant)
1 The plaintiff has sued the defendants in respect of an article headlined “Nightmare on Struggle Street for former AMP boss” published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 20 July 1999.
2 In February 2000 a jury found that that matter complained of carried the following imputation defamatory of the plaintiff:
- The plaintiff was a dishonest broadcaster, in that he secretly agreed with the AMP Society that he would cease to criticise the AMP Society on air in return for the AMP Society agreeing to provide a substantial benefit to the South Sydney Rugby League Club of which he was Director of Football.
3 A transcription of the matter complained of is appended to these reasons.
4 On 18 March 2002 the defendants filed their Defence to the Amended Statement of Claim filed by the plaintiff after the s7A…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Alan Jones v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] NSWSC 1211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the articles carried the defamatory imputations as claimed, and if so, whether these imputations were capable of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Additionally, the court considered whether any post-publication events could mitigate the damages, and the threshold issue of whether the matter complained of had the capacity to carry the alleged defamatory imputations. The court also assessed whether there were any available defences such as truth, fair comment, or qualified privilege.
Justice Gilmour held that the articles did indeed carry the defamatory imputations as claimed by the plaintiff, and that these imputations were capable of lowering him in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The court further found that the post-publication events did not sufficiently mitigate the damages. While considering the threshold issue, the court concluded that the matter complained of had the capacity to carry the defamatory imputations. The court did not find any available defences on behalf of the defendant.
As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff damages and issued an injunction preventing further publication of the articles.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.