CITATION: Beran v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 107 HEARING DATE(S): 6 May 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
5 April 2004JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 2; McColl JA at 3 DECISION: 1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Subject to order 3, appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 3. Respondent to pay the costs of the Summons for Leave to Appeal. CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - appeal from jury decision - whether jury's finding that imputations not conveyed was one which no reasonable jury could reach - whether jury's finding that imputation not defamatory was one which no reasonable jury could reach - interlocutory determination that two articles so interlinked they should be pleaded as one publication - whether leave required to appeal against interlocutory determination. (D) LEGISLATION CITED: Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s 7A, s 7A(3), s 9
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 101(2)(e)
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 15 r 26, Pt 31 r 2, Pt 67 r 12(d), r 12ACASES CITED: Berry v British Transport Commission [1961] 1 QB 149
Bottomley v Hurst & Blackett Ltd (1928) 44 TLR 451
Broome v Agar (1928) 138 LT 698
Burrows v Knightley & Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 651
Cairns v John Fairfax and Sons Ltd [1983] 2 NSWLR 708
Cinevest Ltd v Yirandi Productions Ltd [2001] NSWCA 68; (2001) Aust Torts Reports 81-610
David Syme & Co Ltd v Lloyd [1984] 3 NSWLR 346
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 22; (2002) 209 CLR 478
Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1980] 2 NSWLR 410
Hall v Nominal Defendant (1966) 117 CLR 423
Hardy v Harris (1986) Aust Torts Reports 80-003, BC8601168
John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Rivkin [2003] HCA 50; (2003) 201 ALR 77; (2003) 77 ALJR 1657; (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81-711
Kelly v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Company (1897) 18 LR (NSW) 358
Liftronic Pty Limited v Unver [2001] HCA 24; (2001) 75 ALJR 867
Love v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 112
Phelps v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 130
Piercy v Young (1880) 15 Ch D 475
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Reader's Digest Services Pty Limited v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500
Rivkin v John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 87
Ron Hodgson (Trading) Pty Limited v Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Limited [1971] 1 NSWLR 472
Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 QB 597
Southern Cross Exploration NL v Fire and All Risks Insurance Company Ltd (No 2) (1990) 21 NSWLR 200
Tsvangirai v Special Broadcasting Service [2002] NSWSC 532PARTIES :
Roy Beran (Appellant)
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40875/02; 40950/02 COUNSEL: B.R. McClintock SC/P.M. Strickland (Appellant)
J.R. Sackar QC/T.M. Thawley (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Appellant)
Freehills (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20166/01 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Beran 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.
Details
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by the appellant, Mr Beran, against the respondent, John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from the publication of two newspaper articles. The primary judge had made an interlocutory determination that the two articles were so interlinked that they should be pleaded as a single publication. The appellant sought to appeal this determination, as well as the jury's findings that certain imputations were not conveyed and that other imputations were not defamatory.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether leave to appeal was necessary against the interlocutory determination regarding the pleading of the articles as one publication. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the jury's findings that the imputations pleaded were not conveyed by the articles, and that the imputations that were conveyed were not defamatory, were findings that no reasonable jury could have reached.
The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal was required against the interlocutory determination concerning the pleading of the articles. It further found that the jury's findings were not so unreasonable as to warrant intervention. The court reasoned that the question of whether imputations were conveyed and whether they were defamatory were matters for the jury to determine based on the evidence presented. The jury's conclusions were open to them on the evidence, and therefore, the appeal on these grounds was dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, while the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the Summons for Leave to Appeal.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether leave to appeal was necessary against the interlocutory determination regarding the pleading of the articles as one publication. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the jury's findings that the imputations pleaded were not conveyed by the articles, and that the imputations that were conveyed were not defamatory, were findings that no reasonable jury could have reached.
The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal was required against the interlocutory determination concerning the pleading of the articles. It further found that the jury's findings were not so unreasonable as to warrant intervention. The court reasoned that the question of whether imputations were conveyed and whether they were defamatory were matters for the jury to determine based on the evidence presented. The jury's conclusions were open to them on the evidence, and therefore, the appeal on these grounds was dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, while the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the Summons for Leave to Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Subject to order 3, appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 3. Respondent to pay the costs of the Summons for Leave to Appeal.
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.