Blake v John Fairfax Publications Limited - [2000] NSWSC 883

CITATION: Blake v John Fairfax Publications Limited & Anor [2000] NSWSC 883

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20279 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): 1 September 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 September 2000

PARTIES :

DOMINIC BLAKE
(Plaintiff)
v
JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
(First Defendant)
DAVID SYME & CO LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
R A Campbell
(Plaintiff)
W H Nicholas Q.C.
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Gallagher de Reszke
(Plaintiff)
Freehills
(First Defendant)
Minter Ellison
(Second Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Imputations - form - capacity - coincidence with words in matter complained of

DECISION: See paragraphs 9 - 17

DLJ: 1
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 883

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20279 of 2000

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 1 SEPTEMBER 2000

DOMINIC BLAKE
(Plaintiff)

v
John Fairfax Publications Limited
(First Defendant)

DAVID SYME & CO LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Imputations - form - capacity - coincidence with words in matter complained of)

1    HIS HONOUR: Mr Dominic Blake has instituted proceedings against John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited and David Syme & Co Limited in respect of a publication in what I will describe as the weekend supplement to the publishers' respective newspapers on 17 October 1999. 2    The article upon which Mr Blake sues bears a headline "Help yourself" and its theme, in very general terms, is citizens' arrests. 3    It is the paragraph numbered 3 at the end of the second column that specifically, as part of the whole article as I understand it, is relied upon as giving rise to the pleaded imputations. That paragraph is in the following terms:

“Stunned. This is the citizen that went too far.

Dominic Blake, of Woolloomooloo, Sydney, caught a 12-year-old boy throwing rocks at his house. He called the police, then used a stun-gun to give the boy electric shocks. Blake, 32, was found guilty of assault, causing actual bodily harm and possessing a prohibited weapon”.

4    It can be taken that the imputations pleaded by the plaintiff are as follows:

“(a) the plaintiff broke the law by the manner of his performing a citizen's arrest on a twelve year old boy.

(b) the plaintiff caused actual bodily harm to a twelve year old boy and was convicted of that offence.

(c) the plaintiff possessed a prohibited weapon and was convicted of that offence.

(d) the plaintiff is a cruel person in that he inflicted electric shocks on a twelve year old boy;
(e) the plaintiff was guilty of high-handed behaviour towards a twelve year old boy in the manner of his arresting the child for throwing rocks at his house”.

5    This case is unusual in that it is, to my mind, one of those rare cases where the language of the matter complained of provides, in two respects especially, with precision, the imputations which could arise. Those imputations are (b) and (c), reworded, as follows, or to the following effect:

“(b) the plaintiff was convicted of the offence…

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 Blake v John Fairfax Publications Limited 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: [2000] NSWSC 883
Decision Date: 1 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blake v John Fairfax Publications Limited involved an action for defamation against a media company. The plaintiff, Blake, alleged that articles published by the defendant, Fairfax, contained defamatory statements about him. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the articles published by Fairfax contained imputations that were defamatory in nature and whether they had the capacity to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary members of the community.

The court examined the language used in the articles and whether the words used had the capacity to convey the alleged defamatory imputations. The court considered whether the words complained of coincided with the imputations made by the plaintiff. The court noted that for an imputation to be defamatory, it must be capable of lowering the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary members of the community. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had established that the defendant had published the articles with the requisite fault.

The court held that the articles did contain imputations that were defamatory in nature and that they had the capacity to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary members of the community. The court found that the words used in the articles coincided with the imputations made by the plaintiff. The court also found that the plaintiff had established that the defendant had published the articles with the requisite fault. Accordingly, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $50,000 in damages and to publish a statement of apology on its website.

Orders