Damages - Innuendo of conspiracy by corporations - Queensland Criminal Code of 1899, sec. 543-Queensland Rules of the Supreme Court, Order III., rr. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11; Order IV., r. 7; Order XV., r. 7; Order XXXI., r. 5; Order LIV., r. 1.
The appellants, who were seven limited companies, suing in their corporate names respectively, nine co-partnership firms, suing in their firms' names respectively, and two individuals, brought an action against the respondents for defamation, describing themselves as bringing the action on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Queensland Farm and Dairy Produce Merchants and Agents Association-an unincorporated trade association con- stituted by the plaintiffs and one other firm, which was not otherwise made a party to the action. The defendants were the Farmers Co-operative Dis- tributing Company of Queensland Limited, Sharpe, the manager, and Nielsen, a director of the company. Damages were claimed in respect of two separate defamatory publications. One of these was contained in a circular issued by the respondent Sharpe to customers of the plaintiffs and published in several newspapers, accusing the plaintiffs of having entered into a conspiracy to prevent farmers from obtaining a fair price for their produce. The other was contained in a letter written by the respondent Nielsen to the same effect and published in other newspapers. The defendants joined in their defence and appeared by the same counsel and solicitors. At the trial it was proved that both of the publications were made with the company's authority and by or at the instigation of Sharpe. It was also proved that Nielsen had published the letter, but it was not proved that he had authorized the publication of the circular. The jury found in favour of the plaintiffs with £1,000 damages. The Supreme Court of Queensland on appeal directed judgment of nonsuit
Held, that the imputation of conspiracy was defamatory and actionable in accordance with the rule laid down in South Helton Coal Co. Limited v. North Eastern News Association Limited, (1894) 1 Q.B., 133; and that the fact that a corporation cannot be prosecuted in a Criminal Court for conspiracy does not prevent it from maintaining or joining in an action for defamation imputing that offence.
Quaere, whether a representative action such as this can be taken under Order III., r. 10; but held that under Order III., r. 1, the plaintiffs were not wrongly joined for want of common interest.
Held, also, that objections for misjoinder and non-joinder cannot be success- fully taken after judgment when the point is one of form and not of substance, and no substantial injustice has been occasioned by it.
Held, further, that damages should have been assessed against…
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.
Continue reading Barnes & Co Ltd v Sharpe
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Barnes & Co Ltd v Sharpe [1910] HCA 26
Case
[1910] HCA 26
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants, comprising seven limited companies, nine co-partnership firms, and two individuals, initiated a defamation action against the respondents: the Farmers Co-operative Distributing Company of Queensland Limited, its manager Sharpe, and a director Nielsen. The dispute arose from two separate publications accusing the plaintiffs of conspiring to manipulate produce prices. The plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and other members of an unincorporated trade association. The jury found in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding £1,000 in damages, but the Supreme Court of Queensland subsequently entered a judgment of nonsuit.
The central legal issues before the High Court of Australia were whether the imputation of conspiracy was defamatory and actionable by corporations, the validity of the representative action under the Queensland Rules, and the consequences of alleged misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The court also considered the admissibility of certain evidence presented in reply and the proper assessment of damages against the individual defendants.
The High Court held that the imputation of conspiracy was defamatory and actionable by corporations, notwithstanding that corporations cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy under the Queensland Criminal Code. It was also determined that while the applicability of Order III, rule 10, to representative defamation actions was questionable, the plaintiffs were not wrongly joined under Order III, rule 1, as they had a common interest. Objections regarding misjoinder and non-joinder were deemed to be matters of form, not substance, and could not be successfully raised after judgment if no substantial injustice had occurred. The court found that damages should have been assessed separately against Nielsen, but rather than ordering a full new trial, it had the power to set aside the judgment against him and order a reassessment of damages, while limiting the total recovery to the original verdict amount. The admission of evidence in reply was considered a matter within the judge's discretion and not a ground for a new trial, and evidence tending to prove a relevant fact, even if indirectly, was deemed admissible.
Consequently, the decision of the Full Court of Queensland was reversed. The High Court ordered that the judgment of nonsuit be set aside and that the case be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland for the assessment of damages against Nielsen separately, with the plaintiffs being restricted from recovering more than the original £1,000 from all defendants.