Legal Research
Cases
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren

Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren

Link copied

Case Copied 24 July 1967 38 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearce, Lord Upjohn, Lord Wilberforce and Sir Alfred North.

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LTD v. UREN

(1967) 117 CLR 221

24 July 1967

Defamation—Precedents—Privy Council

Defamation—Damages—Exemplary damages—Circumstances in &hich award may be made. Precedents—Privy Council—High Court decision following previous decisions—Conflict between decisions of House of Lords and High Court. Privy Council—Jurisdiction—Grant of special leave—Ruling sought on point of law decided in High Court—Prerogative of justice—Effect of legislation thereon—The Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (Imp.), s. 3.

Decision

July 24.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST delivered the judgment of their Lordships as follows:-
On 14th February 1963 the respondent commenced an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales claiming damages for defamation against the appellant company. The respondent complained of certain passages which were printed in three newspapers published by the appellant. Damages were claimed in respect of words set out: (1) in an issue dated 8th December 1961 of the Daily Telegraph (a morning newspaper distributed mainly in New South Wales); (2) in an issue dated 3rd November 1962 of The Bulletin (a weekly magazine distributed throughout Australia); (3) in an issue dated 10th February 1963 of the Sunday Telegraph (a Sunday newspaper distributed mainly in New South Wales) and (4) in a further edition of the Sunday Telegraph also dated 10th February 1963. The action was heard in February and March 1964 by his Honour Mr. Justice Collins and a jury of twelve persons. The trial occupied some thirteen days. The appellant denied that the matters complained of bore or were capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the respondent. It relied upon a defence of qualified protection, under s. 17 (h) of the Defamation Act, 1958 (N.S.W.), that the publications were made in the course of the public discussion of subjects of public interest the public discussion of which was for the public benefit, and that in so far as the matters complained of consisted of comment, the comment was fair. By amended replication made at the trial by leave of the judge the respondent alleged that the publications were not made in good faith. It was a contention of the respondent at the trial that the conduct of the appellant in the period between publication and the termination of the trial showed that it was actuated by ill will towards the respondent. (at p223)

2. In his charge to the jury on 10th March 1964 the learned judge left it open to them in the event of their finding for the respondent to award punitive or exemplary damages. He said:

"The plaintiff is entitled to compensation at your hands for the damage that has been done to his reputation. He is entitled to compensation, and that compensation to be awarded may be increased if you find that the publications were made with ill will to the plaintiff, were made as part of a campaign. The damages may be aggravated by those circumstances. But in addition to compensatory damages, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1967] HCA 21
Decision Date: 24 July 1967

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Uren*. The dispute concerned an article published by Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (ACP) in *The Daily Telegraph* newspaper, which the respondent, Uren, alleged was defamatory. Uren was a Member of Parliament and a former soldier who had served in the Second World War. The article, published in 1964, referred to Uren's wartime conduct and suggested he had committed war crimes. Uren claimed the article conveyed defamatory meanings, including that he was a traitor and had committed war crimes. ACP pleaded a defence of justification, asserting the truth of the statements made in the article.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defence of justification was available to ACP. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the statements published in the article were substantially true, as required for a defence of justification in defamation proceedings. This involved an examination of Uren's conduct during the Second World War and the evidence presented by ACP to support its allegations. The court also considered the meaning of the words used in the article and whether they were capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by Uren.

The High Court, in its judgment, affirmed the principles governing the defence of justification. It held that for the defence to succeed, the defendant must prove the truth of the defamatory imputations. The court found that the evidence presented by ACP did not establish the truth of the allegations made against Uren. While some aspects of Uren's conduct during the war were scrutinised, the court concluded that the article had not proven that Uren was a traitor or had committed war crimes. The defence of justification therefore failed.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, upholding the jury's finding of defamation but reducing the damages awarded.

Orders